Alcaraz-Gutiérrez M, Pulido-Contreras E, García-Padilla MÁ, Medrano-Sánchez J, Ríos-Melgarejo C

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 28-33
PDF size: 248.27 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To analyze the stone clearance status resulting from percutaneous nephrolithotomy and compare fluoroscopy time between the one-shot and progressive dilation techniques.
Materials and Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted on patients diagnosed with kidney stones that underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy at the Hospital de Especialidades del Centro Médico Nacional del Bajío in León, Guanajuato, Mexico, within the time frame of September 2015 and December 2016. Clinical characteristics, laboratory results, surgical findings, complications, days of hospital stay, and treatment success (identification of residual stone under 4 mm or its absence, through nephroscopy or fluoroscopy) were evaluated. The correlation between the type of dilation and fluoroscopy time were analyzed using the Student’s t test. Statistical significance was set at a p ‹ 0.05.
Results: Fifty patients were included in the study: 18 (36%) men and 32 (64%) women. Mean patient age was 49.8 years. Stone characteristics: 48 (96%) patients had a single kidney stone; 2 (4%) patients had multiple kidney stones; and the stones in 19 (38%) cases were the staghorn variety. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy effectiveness was complete stone clearance of 82% and a residual stone rate of 18%. Fluoroscopy time was shorter with the one-shot technique versus progressive dilation (p = 0.002).
Conclusions: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy has a high success rate. One-shot dilation is as effective as progressive dilation and has a shorter fluoroscopy time.

REFERENCES

1. Pearle MS, Antonelli JA, Lotan Y. Urinary lithiasis: etiology, epidemiology, and pathogenesis. In: Campbell-Walsh Urology. 11th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2016;pp:1170-1199.e9.

2. Leavitt DA, Rosette JMCH De, Hoenig DM. Strategies for nonmedical management of upper urinary tract calculi. 11th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2016;pp:1235-1259.e10.

3. Medina-Escobedo M, Alcocer-Dzul R, López-López J, et al. Obesidad como factor de riesgo para alteraciones metabólicas en adultos con litiasis urinaria. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2015;53(6):692-7.

4. Tu C, Catto J. EAU Guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):475-82.

5. Li Y, Yang L, Xu P, et al. One-shot versus gradual dilation technique for tract creation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol 2013;443-8.

6. Ghani KR, Andonian S, Bultitude M, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: update, trends and future directions. Eur Urol 2017;70(2):382-96.

7. Thomas K, Smith NC, Hegarty N, Glass JM. The Guy’s stone score—grading the complexity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures. Urology 2011;78:277-281.

8. Tefekli A, Karadag MA, Tepeler K, Berberoglu Y, et al. Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol. 2008;53(1):184-90.

9. Tiselius HG. Urinary tract stone disease: are all problems solved? Scand J Urol 2013;47(1):4-9

10. Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, et al. Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2014:1-98.

11. Jeong CW, Jung JW, Cha WH, Lee BK, et al. Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity Score for predicting stone free rate after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. PloS One 2013;8:1-8.