Cargando…

Comparison of Ultrasonic and Pneumatic Intracorporeal Lithotripsy Techniques during Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Objectives. To compare the effectiveness and safety of ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotripters in the treatment of renal stone disease. Materials and Methods. A total of 227 consecutive percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures for renal calculi were performed. In 107 patients ultrasonic lithotriptors...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karakan, Tolga, Diri, Akif, Hascicek, Ahmet Metin, Ozgur, Berat Cem, Ozcan, Serkan, Eroglu, Muzaffer
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759258/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24023531
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/604361
_version_ 1782477228690374656
author Karakan, Tolga
Diri, Akif
Hascicek, Ahmet Metin
Ozgur, Berat Cem
Ozcan, Serkan
Eroglu, Muzaffer
author_facet Karakan, Tolga
Diri, Akif
Hascicek, Ahmet Metin
Ozgur, Berat Cem
Ozcan, Serkan
Eroglu, Muzaffer
author_sort Karakan, Tolga
collection PubMed
description Objectives. To compare the effectiveness and safety of ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotripters in the treatment of renal stone disease. Materials and Methods. A total of 227 consecutive percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures for renal calculi were performed. In 107 patients ultrasonic lithotriptors were used (group I) and in 83 patients pneumatic lithotriptors were used (group II). In the remaining 37 patients, stones were managed with both pneumatic and ultrasonic lithotripters. Follow-up studies included intravenous urography (IVU) and/or computed tomography (CT). Results. The mean operative time and duration of hospitalization were similar between the groups. In the ultrasonic treatment group, 100 (96.9%) patients were stone-free on postoperative day 1 and 5 (4.6%) went on to undergo an additional treatment modality, resulting in a total stone-free rate of 97.2%. In the pneumatic lithotripsy group, 68 (81.9%) patients were stone-free after the primary procedure on the first day and 15 (18.1%) went on to undergo an additional treatment modality, resulting in a stone-free rate of 91.5%. The final stone-free rates at 3 months postoperatively in groups I, II, and III were 97.2%, 91.5%, and 87.9%, respectively (P = 0.826). Conclusions. We conclude that both ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotripters are effective and safe for intracorporeal lithotripsy. However, the ultrasonic lithotripter provides higher stone-free rates with similar morbidity compared with pneumatic devices.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3759258
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37592582013-09-10 Comparison of Ultrasonic and Pneumatic Intracorporeal Lithotripsy Techniques during Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Karakan, Tolga Diri, Akif Hascicek, Ahmet Metin Ozgur, Berat Cem Ozcan, Serkan Eroglu, Muzaffer ScientificWorldJournal Clinical Study Objectives. To compare the effectiveness and safety of ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotripters in the treatment of renal stone disease. Materials and Methods. A total of 227 consecutive percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures for renal calculi were performed. In 107 patients ultrasonic lithotriptors were used (group I) and in 83 patients pneumatic lithotriptors were used (group II). In the remaining 37 patients, stones were managed with both pneumatic and ultrasonic lithotripters. Follow-up studies included intravenous urography (IVU) and/or computed tomography (CT). Results. The mean operative time and duration of hospitalization were similar between the groups. In the ultrasonic treatment group, 100 (96.9%) patients were stone-free on postoperative day 1 and 5 (4.6%) went on to undergo an additional treatment modality, resulting in a total stone-free rate of 97.2%. In the pneumatic lithotripsy group, 68 (81.9%) patients were stone-free after the primary procedure on the first day and 15 (18.1%) went on to undergo an additional treatment modality, resulting in a stone-free rate of 91.5%. The final stone-free rates at 3 months postoperatively in groups I, II, and III were 97.2%, 91.5%, and 87.9%, respectively (P = 0.826). Conclusions. We conclude that both ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotripters are effective and safe for intracorporeal lithotripsy. However, the ultrasonic lithotripter provides higher stone-free rates with similar morbidity compared with pneumatic devices. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013-08-18 /pmc/articles/PMC3759258/ /pubmed/24023531 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/604361 Text en Copyright © 2013 Tolga Karakan et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Karakan, Tolga
Diri, Akif
Hascicek, Ahmet Metin
Ozgur, Berat Cem
Ozcan, Serkan
Eroglu, Muzaffer
Comparison of Ultrasonic and Pneumatic Intracorporeal Lithotripsy Techniques during Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
title Comparison of Ultrasonic and Pneumatic Intracorporeal Lithotripsy Techniques during Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
title_full Comparison of Ultrasonic and Pneumatic Intracorporeal Lithotripsy Techniques during Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
title_fullStr Comparison of Ultrasonic and Pneumatic Intracorporeal Lithotripsy Techniques during Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Ultrasonic and Pneumatic Intracorporeal Lithotripsy Techniques during Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
title_short Comparison of Ultrasonic and Pneumatic Intracorporeal Lithotripsy Techniques during Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
title_sort comparison of ultrasonic and pneumatic intracorporeal lithotripsy techniques during percutaneous nephrolithotomy
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759258/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24023531
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/604361
work_keys_str_mv AT karakantolga comparisonofultrasonicandpneumaticintracorporeallithotripsytechniquesduringpercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT diriakif comparisonofultrasonicandpneumaticintracorporeallithotripsytechniquesduringpercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT hascicekahmetmetin comparisonofultrasonicandpneumaticintracorporeallithotripsytechniquesduringpercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT ozgurberatcem comparisonofultrasonicandpneumaticintracorporeallithotripsytechniquesduringpercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT ozcanserkan comparisonofultrasonicandpneumaticintracorporeallithotripsytechniquesduringpercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT eroglumuzaffer comparisonofultrasonicandpneumaticintracorporeallithotripsytechniquesduringpercutaneousnephrolithotomy