Comparison of Pneumatic, Ultrasonic and Combination Lithotripters in Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Zengin,Kursad
Data de Publicação: 2014
Outros Autores: Sener,Nevzat Can, Bas,Okan, Nalbant,Ismail, Alisir,Inan
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382014000500650
Resumo: Purpose We aimed to compare the outcomes of pneumatic (PL), ultrasonic (UL) and combined (PL/UL) lithotripsy performed in percutaneous lithotripsy (PNL) according to success rates and stone clearence. Materials and Methods The medical records of 512 patients treated with PNL between April 2010 and April 2013 were evaluated. Postoperative stone analysis revealed as calcium oxalate in 408 of these patients. The operation notes of 355 patients recorded in detail with complete parameters were reviewed. According to stone disintegration method, patients were divided into three groups: PL only in Group I, UL only in Group II, and UL/PL combination in Group III. Number of patients was 155, 110 and 90, respectively. Results Fluoroscopy screening time was significantly shorter in group II, and III compared to group I (p<0.001). The failure rates were 13.5% (21 patients) for group I, 3.6% (4 patients) for group II, and 3.3% (3 patients) for group III. There was a significant statistical difference in favor of group II and III by means of success (p=0.023). Group II and III had larger FSA, and this was statistically significant (p=0.032). Stone disintegration time (SDT) was 64.0±41.92 minutes for group I, 49.5±34.63 for group II, and 37.7±16.89 for group III. Group III has a statistically significant shorter SDT (p=0.011). Conclusions We concluded that, in cases with high stone burden, where faster and efficient lithotripsy is needed, combined ultrasonic / pneumatic lithotripter may be the ideal choice and in suitable cases ultrasonic lithotripter usage provides important advantages to the surgeon.
id SBU-1_23d47bd2a0ba7a1b9d37d187edd13a53
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382014000500650
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Comparison of Pneumatic, Ultrasonic and Combination Lithotripters in Percutaneous NephrolithotripsyPercutaneousOperative TimeCalculi Purpose We aimed to compare the outcomes of pneumatic (PL), ultrasonic (UL) and combined (PL/UL) lithotripsy performed in percutaneous lithotripsy (PNL) according to success rates and stone clearence. Materials and Methods The medical records of 512 patients treated with PNL between April 2010 and April 2013 were evaluated. Postoperative stone analysis revealed as calcium oxalate in 408 of these patients. The operation notes of 355 patients recorded in detail with complete parameters were reviewed. According to stone disintegration method, patients were divided into three groups: PL only in Group I, UL only in Group II, and UL/PL combination in Group III. Number of patients was 155, 110 and 90, respectively. Results Fluoroscopy screening time was significantly shorter in group II, and III compared to group I (p<0.001). The failure rates were 13.5% (21 patients) for group I, 3.6% (4 patients) for group II, and 3.3% (3 patients) for group III. There was a significant statistical difference in favor of group II and III by means of success (p=0.023). Group II and III had larger FSA, and this was statistically significant (p=0.032). Stone disintegration time (SDT) was 64.0±41.92 minutes for group I, 49.5±34.63 for group II, and 37.7±16.89 for group III. Group III has a statistically significant shorter SDT (p=0.011). Conclusions We concluded that, in cases with high stone burden, where faster and efficient lithotripsy is needed, combined ultrasonic / pneumatic lithotripter may be the ideal choice and in suitable cases ultrasonic lithotripter usage provides important advantages to the surgeon. Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2014-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382014000500650International braz j urol v.40 n.5 2014reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.05.10info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessZengin,KursadSener,Nevzat CanBas,OkanNalbant,IsmailAlisir,Inaneng2014-12-11T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382014000500650Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2014-12-11T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of Pneumatic, Ultrasonic and Combination Lithotripters in Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy
title Comparison of Pneumatic, Ultrasonic and Combination Lithotripters in Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy
spellingShingle Comparison of Pneumatic, Ultrasonic and Combination Lithotripters in Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy
Zengin,Kursad
Percutaneous
Operative Time
Calculi
title_short Comparison of Pneumatic, Ultrasonic and Combination Lithotripters in Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy
title_full Comparison of Pneumatic, Ultrasonic and Combination Lithotripters in Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy
title_fullStr Comparison of Pneumatic, Ultrasonic and Combination Lithotripters in Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Pneumatic, Ultrasonic and Combination Lithotripters in Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy
title_sort Comparison of Pneumatic, Ultrasonic and Combination Lithotripters in Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy
author Zengin,Kursad
author_facet Zengin,Kursad
Sener,Nevzat Can
Bas,Okan
Nalbant,Ismail
Alisir,Inan
author_role author
author2 Sener,Nevzat Can
Bas,Okan
Nalbant,Ismail
Alisir,Inan
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Zengin,Kursad
Sener,Nevzat Can
Bas,Okan
Nalbant,Ismail
Alisir,Inan
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Percutaneous
Operative Time
Calculi
topic Percutaneous
Operative Time
Calculi
description Purpose We aimed to compare the outcomes of pneumatic (PL), ultrasonic (UL) and combined (PL/UL) lithotripsy performed in percutaneous lithotripsy (PNL) according to success rates and stone clearence. Materials and Methods The medical records of 512 patients treated with PNL between April 2010 and April 2013 were evaluated. Postoperative stone analysis revealed as calcium oxalate in 408 of these patients. The operation notes of 355 patients recorded in detail with complete parameters were reviewed. According to stone disintegration method, patients were divided into three groups: PL only in Group I, UL only in Group II, and UL/PL combination in Group III. Number of patients was 155, 110 and 90, respectively. Results Fluoroscopy screening time was significantly shorter in group II, and III compared to group I (p<0.001). The failure rates were 13.5% (21 patients) for group I, 3.6% (4 patients) for group II, and 3.3% (3 patients) for group III. There was a significant statistical difference in favor of group II and III by means of success (p=0.023). Group II and III had larger FSA, and this was statistically significant (p=0.032). Stone disintegration time (SDT) was 64.0±41.92 minutes for group I, 49.5±34.63 for group II, and 37.7±16.89 for group III. Group III has a statistically significant shorter SDT (p=0.011). Conclusions We concluded that, in cases with high stone burden, where faster and efficient lithotripsy is needed, combined ultrasonic / pneumatic lithotripter may be the ideal choice and in suitable cases ultrasonic lithotripter usage provides important advantages to the surgeon.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2014-10-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382014000500650
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382014000500650
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.05.10
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.40 n.5 2014
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318073733185536