Advertisement

Papillary puncture: still a good practice

  • Davide Campobasso
  • Stefania Ferretti
  • Antonio Frattini
Letter to Editor

Notes

Author contributions

All authors have made a significant contribution to the work and approved the final version of the manuscript. DC: manuscript writing; SF: manuscript editing; AF: manuscript editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the contributing authors have any conflict of interest, including specific financial interests or relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Kyriazis I, Kallidonis P, Vasilas M, Panagopoulos V, Kamal W, Liatsikos E (2017) Challenging the wisdom of puncture at the calyceal fornix in percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: feasibility and safety study with 137 patients operated via a non-calyceal percutaneous track. World J Urol 35(5):795–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kallidonis P, Kyriazis I, Kotsiris D, Koutava A, Kamal W, Liatsikos E (2017) Papillary vs nonpapillary puncture in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized trial. J Endourol 31(S1):S4–S9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Knoll T, Daels F, Desai J, Hoznek A, Knudsen B, Montanari E, Scoffone C, Skolarikos A, Tozawa K (2017) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: technique. World J Urol 35(9):1361–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kyriazis I, Panagopoulos V, Kallidonis P, Özsoy M, Vasilas M, Liatsikos E (2015) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 33(8):1069–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breda A, Territo A, Scoffone C, Seitz C, Knoll T, Herrmann T, Brehmer M, Osther PJS, Liatsikos E (2018) The evaluation of radiologic methods for access guidance in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review of the literature. Scand J Urol 52(2):81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yazici O, Binbay M, Akman T, Kezer C, Ozgor F, Yuruk E, Berberoglu Y, Muslumanoglu AY (2013) Is there a difference in percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes among various types of pelvicaliceal system? World J Urol 31(5):1267–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Srivastava A, Singh S, Dhayal IR, Rai P (2017) A prospective randomized study comparing the four tract dilation methods of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 35(5):803–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sampaio FJ (2000) Renal anatomy. Endourologic considerations. Urol Clin North Am 27(4):585–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kallidonis P, Kalogeropoulou C, Kyriazis I, Apostolopoulos D, Kitrou P, Kotsiris D, Ntasiotis P, Liatsikos E (2017) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy puncture and tract dilation: evidence on the safety of approaches to the infundibulum of the middle renal calyx. Urology 107:43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kallidonis P, Liatsikos E (2018) Papillary puncture: no way! World J Urol 36(1):155–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Urology UnitCivil Hospital of Guastalla, Azienda USL-IRCCS of Reggio EmiliaReggio EmiliaItaly
  2. 2.SS Endourology and Less Invasive Percutaneous Surgery Urology OUHospital and University of ParmaParmaItaly

Personalised recommendations