Which way is best for stone fragments and dust extraction during percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a commonly used type of minimally invasive treatment in kidney stone surgeries. Surgical success is assessed according to residual stone amount after surgery. The purpose of this study is to compare the two methods’ success and practicality that are applied after the fracture of the stone in the patients who applied PCNL and which enable the removal of the residual stones. Among 102 patients who underwent a single-session of PCNL at our department between June 2015 and November 2016 were evaluated. Previously identified irrigation method and our aspiration method which described used in post-operative patients divided into two groups of residual fragments was assessed by computed tomography. The results were evaluated in statistical analyses. Significant p was accepted as p < 0.05. The age and gender distribution of patients in the irrigation and aspiration groups did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). In irrigation and aspiration groups, stone size did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). The amount of residue stones and dust remaining in the irrigation group was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than the aspiration group. Although many methods have been tried before, we think that the aspiration method we have described is a cheaper, more effective and feasible option.
KeywordsPercutaneous nephrolithotomy Stone fragments Stone dust New technique
Compliance with ethical standards
There was no funding associated with this study.
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 4.Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Straub M, Seitz C (2011) Residual stones, EAU guidelines of urolithiasis, vol 61. European Association of Urology (EAU), ArnhemGoogle Scholar
- 9.Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Straub M, Seitz CS (2016) Residual stones, EAU guidelines of urolithiasis, vol 61. European Association of Urology (EAU), ArnhemGoogle Scholar
- 11.Daggett LM, Harbaugh BL, Collum LA (2002) Post-ESWL, clinically insignificant residual stones: reality or myth? Urology 59:20–24Google Scholar
- 14.Hein S, Schoenthaler M, Wilhelm K, Schlager D, Thiel K, Brandmann M, Richter K, Grunwald I, Wetterauer U, Miernik A (2016) Novel biocompatible adhesive for intrarenal embedding and endoscopic removal of small residual fragments after minimally invasive stone treatment in an ex vivo porcine kidney model: initial evaluation of a prototype. J Urol 196(6):1772–1777CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar