Supracostal punctures in supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy are safe
Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Citações na Scopus
5
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2017
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
CANADIAN J UROLOGY
Citação
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, v.24, n.2, p.8749-8753, 2017
Resumo
Introduction: The feasibility and safety of supracostal punctures in supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are still controversial. In this study we aim to compare success and complication rates from prone and supine PCNL with at least one supracostal puncture. Material and methods: We reviewed our electronic database for all supracostal PCNLs performed in our institution from February 2008 to September 2013. Patients were enrolled in the study if at least one supracostal puncture was required during surgery. Patients' demographics data, stone characteristics, intra and postoperative data, and success on first postoperative day CT were compared. Results: A total of 132 procedures were included in the analysis. Twenty-eight PCNLs were performed in supine position (21.2%), while 104 were done in prone position (78.8%). Patient's demographics and distribution of stones based on Guy's Score were similar between groups. Mean operative time and blood transfusion rate were not statistically different. There was no significant difference in the success rate (63.5% prone versus 71.4% supine, p = 0.507). Major complication rate (Clavien >= 3) was 16.3% in the prone group versus 3.6% in the supine group (p = 0.119). Conclusions: Supracostal punctures are safe and feasible in supine PCNL. It does not add additional risks and might provide equivalent success rates when compared to prone PCNLs.
Palavras-chave
complications, kidney calculi, lithotripsy, urolithiasis
Referências
- Al-Dessoukey AA, 2014, J ENDOUROL, V28, P1058, DOI 10.1089/end.2014.0078
- Anand A, 2010, J ENDOUROL, V24, P1725, DOI 10.1089/end.2010.0164
- Astroza G, 2013, UROLOGY, V82, P1240, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.068
- Atkinson CJ, 2011, BJU INT, V108, P306, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10488.x
- de la Rosette J, 2011, J ENDOUROL, V25, P11, DOI 10.1089/end.2010.0424
- De Sio M, 2008, EUR UROL, V54, P196, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.01.067
- Falahatkar S, 2010, J ENDOUROL, V24, P213, DOI 10.1089/end.2009.0385
- Falahatkar S, 2008, J ENDOUROL, V22, P2513, DOI 10.1089/end.2008.0463
- Gupta R, 2002, BJU INT, V90, P809, DOI 10.1046/j.1464-4096.2002.03051.x
- Karami H, 2013, WORLD J UROL, V31, P1225, DOI 10.1007/s00345-012-0889-y
- Kekre NS, 2001, J ENDOUROL, V15, P789, DOI 10.1089/089277901753205753
- Lojanapiwat B, 2006, J ENDOUROL, V20, P491, DOI 10.1089/end.2006.20.491
- Marchini GS, 2015, J ENDOUROL, V29, P6, DOI 10.1089/end.2014.0299
- Mousavi-Bahar SH, 2011, INT UROL NEPHROL, V43, P983, DOI 10.1007/s11255-011-9916-y
- Papatsoris AG, 2007, BJU INT, V100, P1192
- Raza A, 2008, BJU INT, V101, P599, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07388.x
- Shaban A, 2008, J ENDOUROL, V22, P29, DOI 10.1089/end.2007.0054
- Skolarikos A, 2005, EUR UROL, V47, P22, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.08.009
- Stening SG, 1998, J ENDOUROL, V12, P359, DOI 10.1089/end.1998.12.359
- Thomas K, 2011, UROLOGY, V78, P277, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2010.12.026
- Tiselius HG, 2001, EUR UROL, V40, P362, DOI 10.1159/000049803
- Valdivia JG, 2011, J ENDOUROL, V25, P1619, DOI 10.1089/end.2011.0110
- Vicentini FC, 2014, UROLOGY, V83, P1248, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2013.12.041
- Vicentini FC, 2013, J ENDOUROL, V27, P845, DOI 10.1089/end.2012.0725
- Yadav R, 2008, J ENDOUROL, V22, P1209, DOI 10.1089/end.2007.0438
- Yadav R, 2006, INT J UROL, V13, P1267, DOI 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01537.x
- YOUNG AT, 1985, RADIOLOGY, V154, P633