Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Ultrasonic Versus Pneumatic Lithotripsy in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

被引：27

作者：

Radfar, Mohammad Hadi ^{[1
]}

Basiri, Abbas ^{[1
]}

Nouralizadeh, Akbar ^{[1
]}

Shemshaki, Hamidreza ^{[1
]}

Sarhangnejad, Reza ^{[1
]}

Kashi, Amir Hossein ^{[1
]}

Narouie, Behzad ^{[1
]}

Soltani, Amir Mohammad ^{[1
]}

Nasiri, Mahmoudreza ^{[1
]}

Sotoudeh, Mehdi ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci, Shahid Labbafinejad Med Ctr, Urol & Nephrol Res Ctr, Tehran, Iran

来源：

EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS | 2017年 / 3卷 / 01期

关键词：

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Ultrasonic; Pneumatic;

D O I：

10.1016/j.euf.2017.02.003

中图分类号：

R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学（泌尿生殖系疾病）];

学科分类号：

1002 ; 100201 ;

摘要：

Background: Percutaneous nephrolitotomy (PCNL) is the preferred treatment for large renal stones. There is a need for more comparative data for different lithotripters used in PCNL. Objective: To evaluate the comparative safety and efficacy of ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotripsy in patients undergoing PCNL. Design, setting, and participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at Labbafinejad University Hospital, Tehran, Iran. A total of 180 patients were selected and divided randomly into two groups: 88 patients to pneumatic and 92 to ultrasonic lithotripsy. Intervention: Standard fluoroscopy-guided PCNL was performed using pneumatic or ultrasonic lithotripsy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary outcome was the procedure success rate. We also evaluated other outcome measures including operation time, stone fragmentation and removal time (SFRT), length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. We used SPSS software version 18.0 for data analysis. Results and limitations: The two groups were similar in baseline characteristics. There were no significant differences between the groups in stone fragmentation and removal time (p = 0.63), stone free rate (p = 0.44), and hospital stay (p = 0.66). SFRT for hard stones was shorter using pneumatic lithotripsy (p < 0.001). By contrast, ultrasonic lithotripsy was associated with a shorter SFRT for soft stones (p < 0.001). Postoperative complications were similar in the two groups. A limitation of this study might be the 3-mo follow-up period. Conclusions: In general, there were no significant differences in the success rate and complications between pneumatic and ultrasonic lithotripsy. SFRT was significantly shorter using pneumatic lithotripsy for hard stones, and ultrasonic lithotripsy for soft stones. Patient summary: We found no significant differences in the success rate and complications of percutaneous nephrolitotomy using pneumatic and ultrasonic lithotripsy. Ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotripsy differed in the time for stone fragmentation and removal for hard and soft stones. (C) 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

引用

页码：82 / 88

页数：7

共 16 条

[1] Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Using Pneumatic Lithotripsy (Lithoclast (R)) Alone or in Combination with Ultrasonic Lithotripsy [J].