Safety and efficacy of a single middle calyx access (MCA) in mini-PCNL

被引:0
作者
Sanjay Khadgi
Ahmed R. EL-Nahas
Maitrey Darrad
Abdullatif AL-Terki
机构
[1] Vayodha Hospital,Department of Urology
[2] AL-Amiri Hospital,Urology Unit
[3] University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation,Department of Urology
来源
Urolithiasis | 2020年 / 48卷
关键词
Mini-PCNL; Mini-PERC; Middle calyx; Renal stones;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
To compare outcomes of a single middle calyx access (MCA) with a single upper or lower calyceal access in mini-PCNL. From May 2015 through August 2018, patients’ files who underwent a single renal access mini-PCNL were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent fluoroscopic-guided access (16–20 F) in the prone position. They were categorized into group 1 (MCA) and group 2 (either upper or lower calyceal access). Compared preoperative items included stone location, size, number and complexity (according to Guy’s score). The compared outcome parameters were complication and stone-free rates. The study comprised 512 consecutive patients, 374 patients in group 1 and 138 in group 2. A single MCA was utilized to access 95% of proximal ureteral calculi, 89% for ureteropelvic junction stones, and 84% for stones present in the pelvicalyceal system and ureter. MCA was used in 89% of complete staghorn stones and 73% of multiple stones. the Stone-free rates (93% vs 90.6%, P = 0.350) and the complications rates (8% vs 7.2%, P = 0.772) were comparable between group 1 and 2 despite that MCA was used for most cases with complex stones. Complications severity were also comparable (P = 0.579). Mini-PCNL performed through a single MCA is effective and safe. This access can be used for the treatment of renal and upper ureteral calculi of different complexities and locations.
引用
收藏
页码:541 / 546
页数:5
相关论文
共 155 条
  • [1] Al-Terki A(2019)Middle calyx access in mini-PCNL: the universal access BJU Int 196 1161-1169
  • [2] Khadgi S(2016)Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline. PART II J Urol 69 475-482
  • [3] El-Nahas A(2016)EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis Eur Urol 13 212-216
  • [4] Darrad M(2015)Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for treating a 20–30 mm single renal pelvic stone Arab J Urol 26 52-57
  • [5] Assimos D(2012)A randomized controlled study to analyze the safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the management of renal stones more than 2 cm in diameter J Endourol 67 125-137
  • [6] Krambeck A(2015)Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur Urol 25 11-17
  • [7] Miller NL(2011)The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients J Endourol 18 715-722
  • [8] Monga M(2004)Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study J Endourol 46 99-106
  • [9] Murad MH(2018)Miniaturisation of PCNL Urolithiasis 11 171-172
  • [10] Nelson CP(1997)The Hickman peel-away sheath: alternative for pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy J Endourol 36 285-291