Michael S Borofsky1, Daniel A Wollin2, Thanmaya Reddy3, Ojas Shah2, Dean G Assimos3, James E Lingeman4. 1. Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indiana University Health at Methodist Hospital, Indianapolis, Indiana. 2. Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Urology, University of Alabama-Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 4. Department of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indiana University Health at Methodist Hospital, Indianapolis, Indiana. Electronic address: jlingeman@iuhealth.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy has high potential for morbidity or failure. There are limited data regarding risk factors for failure and to our knowledge no published reports of surgical outcomes in patients with prior failed attempts at percutaneous stone removal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients referred to 3 medical centers after prior failed attempts at percutaneous nephrolithotomy. A retrospective chart review was performed to analyze reasons for initial failure and outcomes of salvage percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Outcomes were compared to those in a prospectively maintained database of more than 1,200 patients treated with a primary procedure. RESULTS: Salvage percutaneous nephrolithotomy was performed in 31 patients. Unsuitable access to the stone was the reason for failure in 80% of cases. Other reasons included infection, bleeding and inadequate instrument availability in 6.5% of cases each. Compared to patients who underwent primary percutaneous nephrolithotomy those treated with salvage were more likely to have staghorn calculi (61.3% vs 31.4%, p <0.01) and a larger maximum stone diameter (3.7 vs 2.5 cm, p <0.01), and require a secondary procedure (65.5% vs 42.1%, p <0.01). There was no significant difference between the cohorts in the remaining demographics or perioperative outcomes. All patients were deemed completely stone free except one who elected observation for a 3 mm nonobstructing fragment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the more challenging nature and prior unsuccessful attempts at treatment, the outcomes of salvage percutaneous nephrolithotomy were no different from those of primary percutaneous nephrolithotomy when performed by experienced surgeons.
PURPOSE: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy has high potential for morbidity or failure. There are limited data regarding risk factors for failure and to our knowledge no published reports of surgical outcomes in patients with prior failed attempts at percutaneous stone removal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients referred to 3 medical centers after prior failed attempts at percutaneous nephrolithotomy. A retrospective chart review was performed to analyze reasons for initial failure and outcomes of salvage percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Outcomes were compared to those in a prospectively maintained database of more than 1,200 patients treated with a primary procedure. RESULTS: Salvage percutaneous nephrolithotomy was performed in 31 patients. Unsuitable access to the stone was the reason for failure in 80% of cases. Other reasons included infection, bleeding and inadequate instrument availability in 6.5% of cases each. Compared to patients who underwent primary percutaneous nephrolithotomy those treated with salvage were more likely to have staghorn calculi (61.3% vs 31.4%, p <0.01) and a larger maximum stone diameter (3.7 vs 2.5 cm, p <0.01), and require a secondary procedure (65.5% vs 42.1%, p <0.01). There was no significant difference between the cohorts in the remaining demographics or perioperative outcomes. All patients were deemed completely stone free except one who elected observation for a 3 mm nonobstructing fragment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the more challenging nature and prior unsuccessful attempts at treatment, the outcomes of salvage percutaneous nephrolithotomy were no different from those of primary percutaneous nephrolithotomy when performed by experienced surgeons.
Authors: Glenn M Preminger; Dean G Assimos; James E Lingeman; Stephen Y Nakada; Margaret S Pearle; J Stuart Wolf Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Khurshid R Ghani; Jesse D Sammon; Naeem Bhojani; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Maxine Sun; Shyam Sukumar; Ray Littleton; James O Peabody; Mani Menon; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Emrah Yuruk; Ahmet Tefekli; Erhan Sari; Mert Ali Karadag; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Murat Binbay; Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alfonso Benincasa; Federico Nicolosi; Giovanni Lughezzani; Nicolò Maria Buffi; Paolo Casale; Rodolfo Hurle; Massimo Lazzeri; Pasquale Cardone; Giorgio Guazzoni; Alberto Saita Journal: J Endourol Case Rep Date: 2016-07-01