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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |