Cargando…

The clinical outcomes of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, efficacy and feasibility of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL). METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted including 200 patients who underwent mini-PCNL for renal stones. All patients underwent PCNL using Electro-Medical S...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Singh, Abhishek Gajendra, Palaniappan, Sundaram, Jai, Shrikant, Tak, Gopal, Ganpule, Arvind, Sabnis, Ravindra, Desai, Mahesh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Second Military Medical University 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8841240/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35198398
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2021.05.003
_version_ 1784650793673031680
author Singh, Abhishek Gajendra
Palaniappan, Sundaram
Jai, Shrikant
Tak, Gopal
Ganpule, Arvind
Sabnis, Ravindra
Desai, Mahesh
author_facet Singh, Abhishek Gajendra
Palaniappan, Sundaram
Jai, Shrikant
Tak, Gopal
Ganpule, Arvind
Sabnis, Ravindra
Desai, Mahesh
author_sort Singh, Abhishek Gajendra
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, efficacy and feasibility of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL). METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted including 200 patients who underwent mini-PCNL for renal stones. All patients underwent PCNL using Electro-Medical Systems laser. In addition to the laser in 100 patients, a suction device was used (laser with suction [LWS]). In the other 100, suction device was not used (laser with no additional suction [LOS]). Mini-PCNL was performed using standard technique and Karl Storz minimally invasive PCNL-medium system was used. Primary end point was stone clearance. RESULTS: Both the groups were comparable in terms of demographic data. Mean stone size was 15.24±5.90 mm and 16.16±5.53 mm in LWS and LOS, respectively. Mean Hounsfield unit of stone was 1285.64 and 1206.79 in LWS and LOS, respectively. Operative time was less in LWS group (56.89±19.65 min) as compared to LOS (62.01±28.81 min). At one-month follow-up, radiological complete clearance was 96% in LWS and 92% in LOS. On subgroup analysis of stones larger than 18 mm, the clearance rate was in favour of LWS (85.7% vs. 100%) and also the need for nephrostomy placement was less in LWS group. CONCLUSIONS: LWS device is safe and efficacious when used with mini-PCNL. For stones greater than 18 mm, it has a better stone free rate as compared to using no suction.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8841240
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Second Military Medical University
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88412402022-02-22 The clinical outcomes of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy Singh, Abhishek Gajendra Palaniappan, Sundaram Jai, Shrikant Tak, Gopal Ganpule, Arvind Sabnis, Ravindra Desai, Mahesh Asian J Urol Original Article OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, efficacy and feasibility of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL). METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted including 200 patients who underwent mini-PCNL for renal stones. All patients underwent PCNL using Electro-Medical Systems laser. In addition to the laser in 100 patients, a suction device was used (laser with suction [LWS]). In the other 100, suction device was not used (laser with no additional suction [LOS]). Mini-PCNL was performed using standard technique and Karl Storz minimally invasive PCNL-medium system was used. Primary end point was stone clearance. RESULTS: Both the groups were comparable in terms of demographic data. Mean stone size was 15.24±5.90 mm and 16.16±5.53 mm in LWS and LOS, respectively. Mean Hounsfield unit of stone was 1285.64 and 1206.79 in LWS and LOS, respectively. Operative time was less in LWS group (56.89±19.65 min) as compared to LOS (62.01±28.81 min). At one-month follow-up, radiological complete clearance was 96% in LWS and 92% in LOS. On subgroup analysis of stones larger than 18 mm, the clearance rate was in favour of LWS (85.7% vs. 100%) and also the need for nephrostomy placement was less in LWS group. CONCLUSIONS: LWS device is safe and efficacious when used with mini-PCNL. For stones greater than 18 mm, it has a better stone free rate as compared to using no suction. Second Military Medical University 2022-01 2021-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8841240/ /pubmed/35198398 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2021.05.003 Text en © 2022 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Singh, Abhishek Gajendra
Palaniappan, Sundaram
Jai, Shrikant
Tak, Gopal
Ganpule, Arvind
Sabnis, Ravindra
Desai, Mahesh
The clinical outcomes of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy
title The clinical outcomes of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy
title_full The clinical outcomes of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy
title_fullStr The clinical outcomes of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy
title_full_unstemmed The clinical outcomes of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy
title_short The clinical outcomes of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy
title_sort clinical outcomes of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8841240/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35198398
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2021.05.003
work_keys_str_mv AT singhabhishekgajendra theclinicaloutcomesoflaserwithsuctiondeviceinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT palaniappansundaram theclinicaloutcomesoflaserwithsuctiondeviceinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT jaishrikant theclinicaloutcomesoflaserwithsuctiondeviceinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT takgopal theclinicaloutcomesoflaserwithsuctiondeviceinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT ganpulearvind theclinicaloutcomesoflaserwithsuctiondeviceinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT sabnisravindra theclinicaloutcomesoflaserwithsuctiondeviceinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT desaimahesh theclinicaloutcomesoflaserwithsuctiondeviceinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT singhabhishekgajendra clinicaloutcomesoflaserwithsuctiondeviceinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT palaniappansundaram clinicaloutcomesoflaserwithsuctiondeviceinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT jaishrikant clinicaloutcomesoflaserwithsuctiondeviceinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT takgopal clinicaloutcomesoflaserwithsuctiondeviceinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT ganpulearvind clinicaloutcomesoflaserwithsuctiondeviceinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT sabnisravindra clinicaloutcomesoflaserwithsuctiondeviceinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT desaimahesh clinicaloutcomesoflaserwithsuctiondeviceinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy