medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Revista Mexicana de Urología

Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2010, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2010; 70 (6)

Efectos de la cirugía renal abierta y litotripsia extracorpórea con ondas de choque fallida en la realización y resultados finales de la nefrolitotomía percutánea

Ochoa-del Real JM, González GF, Galeana-Ruiz R
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 354-359
PDF size: 768.05 Kb.


Key words:

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, kidney surgery, Mexico.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the effects of open renal surgery and failed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment on the performance and final results of percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Methods: A total of seventy-four consecutive percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures were carried out as treatment for kidney stones at the authors’ institution from January 2007 to October 2009. Of that total, eight patients (10.8%) had a history of failed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on the same side and made up Group 1. Fifteen patients of the total (20.3%) had a history of open kidney surgery, with or without extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, on the same kidney and made up Group 2. The remaining fiftyone patients (68.9%) with no history of open kidney surgery or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy made up Group 3. Patient demographics, stone characteristics, surgical findings, including surgery duration, collecting system access time, fluoroscopy duration, success percentage, need for auxiliary treatment, and complications were documented in detail and compared among all groups.
Results: There were no differences among the three groups in regard to age, sex, weight, and stone laterality. Mean surgery duration, collecting system access time, fluoroscopic scan duration, complication frequency, nephrostomy removal time, and hospital stay were similar for each group (P›0.05 for each parameter). Stone-free percentages after percutaneous nephrolithotomy were 75% in Group 1, 73.3% in Group 2, and 68.6% in Group 3. These percentages increased to 100%, 80%, and 92.2%, in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, after a second intervention (percutaneous nephrolithotomy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, or nephroureteroscopy).
Conclusions: The present study clearly shows that percutaneous nephrolithotomy as standard technique can be safely carried out in patients with a past medical history of open nephrolithotomy or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with no higher complication risk and with a success rate similar to those percutaneous nephrolithotomy patients with no previous intervention.


REFERENCES

  1. Sofikerim M, Demirci D, Gülmez I, Karacagil M. Does previous open nephrolithotomy affect the outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy? J Endourol 2007;21:401-3.

  2. Amiel J, Choong S. Renal stone disease: The urological perspective. Nephron Clin Pract 2004;98:c54-8.

  3. Lojanapiwat B. Previous open nephrolithotomy: Does it affect percutaneous nephrolithotomy techniques and outcome? J Endourol 2006;20:17-20.

  4. Jones DJ, Russell GL, Kellett MJ, Wickham JE. The changing practice of percutaneous stone surgery: Review of 1000 cases 1981–1988. Br J Urol 1990l;66:1-5.

  5. Viville C. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Personal experience in 100 cases. J Urol (Paris) 1987;93:253-8.

  6. Yuruk E, Tefekli A, Sari E, et al. Does previous extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy affect the performance and outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy? J Urol 2009;181:663-7.

  7. Tiselius HG, Ackermann D, Alken P, et al. Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Arnheim, The Netherlands: Eur Urol 2001;40:362-71.

  8. Basiri A, Karrami H, Moghaddam SM, Shadpour P. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with or without a history of open nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2003;17:213-6.

  9. Margel D, Lifshitz DA, Kugel V, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients who previously underwent open nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2005;19:1161-4Wong MY. Evolving technique of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in a developing country: Singapore General Hospital experience. J Endourol 1998;12:397-401.

  10. Davis BE, Noble MJ, Mebust WK. Use of the Collings knife electrode for percutaneous access in difficult endourology cases. J Urol 1991;145:257-61.

  11. Tzai TS, Chang CL, Hwang IS. An alternative approach to tract dilation using optic urethrotome in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 1987;137:1110-2.

  12. Kurtulus FO, Fazlioglu A, Tandogdu Z, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Primary patients versus patients with history of open renal surgery. J Endourol 2008;22:2671-5.

  13. Bon D, Doré B, Fournier F, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy after failure of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: Indications, results, perspectives. Prog Urol 1993;3:951-8.

  14. Berkan, Cengiz K, Cagri S. et al. Effect of previous open renal surgery and failed extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy on the performance and outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2010;24:13-6.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Rev Mex Urol. 2010;70