Literature DB >> 34812729

Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy is safe and effective in patients with extended selection criteria.

Gregory William Hosier1, Kashif Visram2, Thomas McGregor2, Stephen Steele2, Naji J Touma2, Darren Beiko2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been limited to highly selected patients. The objective of our study was to compare complication and stone-free rates after ambulatory PCNL in standard selection criteria vs. extended criteria patients.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of prospective data on all patients who underwent ambulatory PCNL at one academic center from 2007-2018. Extended criteria patients were defined as one or more of: age >75 years, body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score >2, bilateral stones, solitary kidney, transplant kidney, complete staghorn calculi, stone burden >40 mm, multiple tracts, or prior nephrostomy tubes/stents. Primary outcomes were complication rates (Clavien-Dindo classification) and stone-free rates.
RESULTS: We identified 118 patients, of which 92 (78%) met extended criteria. Mean BMI was 31 kg/m2 and 45% were ASA 3 or higher. Mean sum maximum stone diameter was 24 mm. Multiple stones were present in 25%, bilateral stones in 7%, and complete staghorn stones in 4% of patients. There was no difference in complication (12% vs. 18%, p=0.56), emergency department visit (12% vs. 18%, p=0.56), or re-admission (4% vs. 5%, p=1) rates between standard and extended criteria patients, respectively. Of the complications, 85% were Clavien-Dindo grade 1. Stone-free rates were not different between standard (84%) and extended (83%) criteria patients (p=1). No extended criteria variables were associated with complications in multivariable analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Complication and stone-free rates were not different between standard and extended selection criteria patients undergoing ambulatory PCNL. This data indicates that many of the preoperative patient and stone factors that have previously been used as exclusion criteria for ambulatory PCNL are not strictly necessary.

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 34812729      PMCID: PMC9054338          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.7527

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   2.052


  20 in total

1.  Getting started with ambulatory PCNL: A CanMEDS perspective.

Authors:  Darren Beiko; Sero Andonian
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy in Canada: A cost-reducing innovation.

Authors:  Tad Kroczak; Kenneth T Pace; Sero Andonian; Darren Beiko
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2018-09-27       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients aged 60 years or older.

Authors:  A Sahin; N Atsü; E Erdem; S Oner; C Bilen; M Bakkaloğlu; S Kendi
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I.

Authors:  Dean Assimos; Amy Krambeck; Nicole L Miller; Manoj Monga; M Hassan Murad; Caleb P Nelson; Kenneth T Pace; Vernon M Pais; Margaret S Pearle; Glenn M Preminger; Hassan Razvi; Ojas Shah; Brian R Matlaga
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients.

Authors:  Jean de la Rosette; Dean Assimos; Mahesh Desai; Jorge Gutierrez; James Lingeman; Roberto Scarpa; Ahmet Tefekli
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.942

6.  Outpatient tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the initial case series.

Authors:  Darren Beiko; Linda Lee
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Outcomes Based on S.T.O.N.E., GUY, CROES, and S-ReSC Scoring Systems: The First Prospective Study.

Authors:  Ahmed M Al Adl; Ahmed Mohey; Ashraf Abdel Aal; Hosam Abdel Fattah Abu-Elnasr; Tarek El Karamany; Yasser A Noureldin
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2020-03-23       Impact factor: 2.942

8.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in high-risk patients: a single-center experience with more than 350 cases.

Authors:  Akbar Nouralizadeh; Alireza Lashay; Seyed Amir Mohsen Ziaee; Ali Ahanian; Seyed Hossein Hosseini Sharifi; Mohammad Masoud Nikkar; Ardalan Ojand; Mohammad Hossein Soltani
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 2.089

9.  Day care PNL using 'Santosh-PGI hemostatic seal' versus standard PNL: A randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Santosh Kumar; Shivanshu Singh; Prashant Singh; Shrawan Kumar Singh
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2016-06-20

Review 10.  Tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yang Xun; Qing Wang; Henglong Hu; Yuchao Lu; Jiaqiao Zhang; Baolong Qin; Yudi Geng; Shaogang Wang
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 2.264

View more
  1 in total

1.  Considerations before changing ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy practices.

Authors:  Andrea G Lantz Powers
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 2.052

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.