Bilateral simultaneous percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus staged approach: a critical analysis of complications and renal function
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
3
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2020
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ASSOC MEDICA BRASILEIRA
Citação
REVISTA DA ASSOCIACAO MEDICA BRASILEIRA, v.66, n.12, p.1696-1701, 2020
Resumo
INTRODUCTION: Patients with bilateral kidney stones and burdened by large stones are challenging cases for endourologists. Simultaneous bilateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sbPCNL) is an option; however, it may be accompanied by important morbidity. An alternative is a staged PCNL, operating one side each time. Herein, we compare the impact of sbPCNL and staged PCNL on complication rates and renal function. METHODS: Patients who underwent sbPCNL or staged bilateral PCNL with a frame time of 6 months were searched in our prospectively collected kidney stone database. Groups were compared for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities (classification by the American Society of Anesthesiology - ASA), stone size, Guy's score, stone-free status, renal function, blood loss, blood transfusion rate, complication rate, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients and 52 kidney units were enrolled. The mean operative time was 134.7 min. Only 11.3% of cases had complications, all of them minor (Clavien <= 2). Overall, the stone-free rate was 61.50%. Comparing the groups, there was a significantly longer operative time in the sbPCNL group (172.5 vs. 126.3 min; p=0.016), as well as a higher transfusion rate (12.5% vs. 5.6%; p=0.036). There was no statistically significant difference in creatinine levels between the groups. Regarding the stone-free rate, there was a significantly higher proportion of patients in the staged PCNL group (64.9% vs. 43.8%; p=0.012). CONCLUSION: sbPCNL is a safe procedure; however, when compared to staged procedures it has a higher transfusion and lower stonefree rate.
Palavras-chave
Complications, Kidney, Lithotripsy, Urinary calculi
Referências
- Adhikari Mahesh Bahadur, 2019, J Nepal Health Res Counc, V17, P114, DOI 10.33314/jnhrc.1357
- Darabi Mohammad Reza, 2018, Electron Physician, V10, P6377, DOI 10.19082/6377
- ElSheemy MS, 2018, UROLOGY, V120, P62, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2018.07.015
- Ferraro PM, 2017, J UROLOGY, V198, P858, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.124
- Ferraro PM, 2017, J NEPHROL, V30, P227, DOI 10.1007/s40620-016-0283-8
- Jones P, 2017, J ENDOUROL, V31, P334, DOI 10.1089/end.2016.0851
- Labate G, 2011, J ENDOUROL, V25, P1275, DOI 10.1089/end.2011.0067
- Marchini GS, 2015, J ENDOUROL, V29, P956, DOI 10.1089/end.2015.0021
- Narvaez A, 2018, ACTAS UROL ESP, V42, P316, DOI 10.1016/j.acuro.2017.12.004
- Rivera ME, 2018, UROLOGY, V111, P48, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2017.09.020
- Scales CD, 2016, CLIN J AM SOC NEPHRO, V11, P1305, DOI 10.2215/CJN.13251215
- Scales CD, 2012, EUR UROL, V62, P160, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.052
- Shah HN, 2005, UROLOGY, V66, P500, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2005.03.064
- Silverstein AD, 2004, J ENDOUROL, V18, P145, DOI 10.1089/089277904322959770
- Sofer M, 2017, CAN J UROL, V24, P9114
- Thomas K, 2011, UROLOGY, V78, P277, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2010.12.026
- Turk C, 2016, EUR UROL, V69, P475, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041
- Ziemba JB, 2015, BJU INT, V116, P184, DOI 10.1111/bju.13080