Cargando…
Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Using Pneumatic Lithotripsy (Lithoclast®) Alone or in Combination with Ultrasonic Lithotripsy
PURPOSE: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the procedure of choice for treating large renal stones. Pneumatic lithotripsy (Lithoclast®) is effective regardless of the stones' composition, and ultrasonic lithotripsy allows the aspiration of small debris during lithotripsy. We investigated t...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Urological Association
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991577/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21165200 http://dx.doi.org/10.4111/kju.2010.51.11.783 |
_version_ | 1782192610495954944 |
---|---|
author | Cho, C one Yu, Ji Hyeong Sung, Luck Hee Chung, Jae Yong Noh, Choong Hee |
author_facet | Cho, C one Yu, Ji Hyeong Sung, Luck Hee Chung, Jae Yong Noh, Choong Hee |
author_sort | Cho, C one |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the procedure of choice for treating large renal stones. Pneumatic lithotripsy (Lithoclast®) is effective regardless of the stones' composition, and ultrasonic lithotripsy allows the aspiration of small debris during lithotripsy. We investigated the efficacy and safety of PCNL via Lithoclast® alone or combined with ultrasonic lithotripsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five (group A) and 39 (group B) patients underwent Lithoclast® PCNL and combination therapy, respectively, from May 2001 to March 2010, and the two groups were compared in terms of stone size, location, and composition; operative time; average number of treatments; hospital days; hemoglobin loss; ancillary procedures; rate of device failure; and initial and total stone-free rates. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ significantly in preoperative stone size, location, or composition; the average number of treatments; or the initial and overall stone-free rates. However, combination therapy was associated with a significantly lower operative time (181±50 vs. 221±65 min, respectively, p=0.004), number of hospital days (11.6±3.8 vs. 14.2±4.4 days, respectively, p=0.009), and average hemoglobin loss (1.12±0.61 vs. 1.39±1.02 g/dl, respectively, p=0.013). Transfusions were required in 6 patients (4 and 2 in each group, respectively), but there were no significant complications related to percutaneous access. There were 2 (5.7%) mechanical failures (Lithoclast® probe fracture) in the group A and 5 (12.8%) in the group B (2 cases of suction tube obstruction, 3 cases of overheating). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ultrasonic lithotripter and Lithoclast® is more effective than Lithoclast® alone because it significantly decreases operative time, hemoglobin loss, and the hospital stay. This may reflect the superior power of Lithoclast® and the ability to aspirate the debris during ultrasonic lithotripsy. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2991577 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | The Korean Urological Association |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-29915772010-12-16 Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Using Pneumatic Lithotripsy (Lithoclast®) Alone or in Combination with Ultrasonic Lithotripsy Cho, C one Yu, Ji Hyeong Sung, Luck Hee Chung, Jae Yong Noh, Choong Hee Korean J Urol Original Article PURPOSE: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the procedure of choice for treating large renal stones. Pneumatic lithotripsy (Lithoclast®) is effective regardless of the stones' composition, and ultrasonic lithotripsy allows the aspiration of small debris during lithotripsy. We investigated the efficacy and safety of PCNL via Lithoclast® alone or combined with ultrasonic lithotripsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five (group A) and 39 (group B) patients underwent Lithoclast® PCNL and combination therapy, respectively, from May 2001 to March 2010, and the two groups were compared in terms of stone size, location, and composition; operative time; average number of treatments; hospital days; hemoglobin loss; ancillary procedures; rate of device failure; and initial and total stone-free rates. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ significantly in preoperative stone size, location, or composition; the average number of treatments; or the initial and overall stone-free rates. However, combination therapy was associated with a significantly lower operative time (181±50 vs. 221±65 min, respectively, p=0.004), number of hospital days (11.6±3.8 vs. 14.2±4.4 days, respectively, p=0.009), and average hemoglobin loss (1.12±0.61 vs. 1.39±1.02 g/dl, respectively, p=0.013). Transfusions were required in 6 patients (4 and 2 in each group, respectively), but there were no significant complications related to percutaneous access. There were 2 (5.7%) mechanical failures (Lithoclast® probe fracture) in the group A and 5 (12.8%) in the group B (2 cases of suction tube obstruction, 3 cases of overheating). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ultrasonic lithotripter and Lithoclast® is more effective than Lithoclast® alone because it significantly decreases operative time, hemoglobin loss, and the hospital stay. This may reflect the superior power of Lithoclast® and the ability to aspirate the debris during ultrasonic lithotripsy. The Korean Urological Association 2010-11 2010-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC2991577/ /pubmed/21165200 http://dx.doi.org/10.4111/kju.2010.51.11.783 Text en Copyright © The Korean Urological Association, 2010 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Cho, C one Yu, Ji Hyeong Sung, Luck Hee Chung, Jae Yong Noh, Choong Hee Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Using Pneumatic Lithotripsy (Lithoclast®) Alone or in Combination with Ultrasonic Lithotripsy |
title | Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Using Pneumatic Lithotripsy (Lithoclast®) Alone or in Combination with Ultrasonic Lithotripsy |
title_full | Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Using Pneumatic Lithotripsy (Lithoclast®) Alone or in Combination with Ultrasonic Lithotripsy |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Using Pneumatic Lithotripsy (Lithoclast®) Alone or in Combination with Ultrasonic Lithotripsy |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Using Pneumatic Lithotripsy (Lithoclast®) Alone or in Combination with Ultrasonic Lithotripsy |
title_short | Comparison of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Using Pneumatic Lithotripsy (Lithoclast®) Alone or in Combination with Ultrasonic Lithotripsy |
title_sort | comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy using pneumatic lithotripsy (lithoclast®) alone or in combination with ultrasonic lithotripsy |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991577/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21165200 http://dx.doi.org/10.4111/kju.2010.51.11.783 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chocone comparisonofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyusingpneumaticlithotripsylithoclastaloneorincombinationwithultrasoniclithotripsy AT yujihyeong comparisonofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyusingpneumaticlithotripsylithoclastaloneorincombinationwithultrasoniclithotripsy AT sungluckhee comparisonofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyusingpneumaticlithotripsylithoclastaloneorincombinationwithultrasoniclithotripsy AT chungjaeyong comparisonofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyusingpneumaticlithotripsylithoclastaloneorincombinationwithultrasoniclithotripsy AT nohchoonghee comparisonofpercutaneousnephrolithotomyusingpneumaticlithotripsylithoclastaloneorincombinationwithultrasoniclithotripsy |