Advertisement

Urolithiasis

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 297–302 | Cite as

Which way is best for stone fragments and dust extraction during percutaneous nephrolithotomy

  • Bulent Kati
  • Eyyup Sabri Pelit
  • Ismail Yagmur
  • Yigit Akin
  • Halil Ciftci
  • Ercan Yeni
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy Stone fragments Stone dust New technique 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

There was no funding associated with this study.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Ramakumar S, Segura JW (2000) Renal calculi. Percutaneous management. Urol Clin N Am 27:617–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Osman MM, Alfano Y, Kamp S et al (2005) 5-year follow-up of patients with clinically insignificant residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 47:860–864CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pearle MS, Watamull LM, Mullican MA (1999) Sensitivity of noncontrast helical computerized tomography and plain film radiography compared to flexible nephroscopy for detecting residual fragments after percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. J Urol 162:23–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 5.
    Altunrende F, Tefekli A, Stein RJ, Autorino R, Yuruk E, Laydner H (2011) Clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: medium-term follow-up. J Endourol 25(6):941–945CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Acar C, Cal C (2012) Impact of residual fragments following endourological treatments in renal stones. Adv Urol 2012:813523CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Panah A, Masood J, Zaman F, Papatsoris AG, El-Husseiny T, Buchholz N (2009) A technique to flush out renal stone fragments during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 23(1):5–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim SC, Kuo RL, Lingeman JE (2003) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update. Curr Opin Urol 13(3):235–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 10.
    Khaitan A, Gupta NP, Hemal AK, Dogra PN, Seth A, Aron M (2002) Post-ESWL, clinically insignificant residual stones: reality or myth? Urology 59:20–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daggett LM, Harbaugh BL, Collum LA (2002) Post-ESWL, clinically insignificant residual stones: reality or myth? Urology 59:20–24Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mager R, Balzereit C, Hüsch T, Herrmann T, Nicklas A, Nagele U, Haferkamp A, Schilling D (2016) Clearance of stone fragments and stone dust by continuous flow hydrodynamics in percutaneous renal surgery: an in vitro study. J Endourol 30(4):441–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Antonelli JA, Beardsley H, Faddegon S, Morgan MS, Gahan JC, Pearle MS, Cadeddu JA (2016) A novel device to prevent stone fragment migration during percutaneous lithotripsy: results from an in vitro kidney model. J Endourol 30(11):1239–1243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urology, Faculty of MedicineHarran UniversitySanliurfaTurkey
  2. 2.Urology Department, Faculty of MedicineKatip Celebi UniversityIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations