Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Single-center Initial Experience

Authors

  • Ivica Stojanoski Department of Urology, General Hospital “8th September”, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
  • Toni Krstev Department of Urology, General Hospital “8th September”, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
  • Lazar Iievski Department of Urology, General Hospital “8th September”, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
  • Nerhim Tufekgioski Department of Urology, General Hospital “8th September”, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
  • Sotir Stavridis University Clinic of Urology, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2020.5257

Keywords:

percutaneous nephrolithotomy, renal stones, urolithiasis, lithothripsy, safety

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the age of modern medicine, thanks to the development of small-caliber nephroscope as well as various types of intracorporeal lithotripters, treatment options for renal stones have changed dramatically, and the area of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has expanded. Nowadays, PCNL is not only the first choice in the treatment of stones >2 cm, as well as complicated renal stones (staghorn stones, multiple stones, and stones associated with abnormal renal anatomy), but is also the method of optimal treatment for medium-sized stones not treated with other less invasive methods.

AIM: The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of PCNL as monotherapy in the treatment of renal stones larger than 15 mm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study presents a retrospectively prospective study of 14 (4 retrospective and 10 prospective) consecutive patients with renal stones larger than 15 mm treated with PCNL in the period from January 2020 to March 2020 at the GH “8 September” – Skopje. Pre-operative preparation of patients included: A history along with physical examination, a complete blood count and radiological examinations to assess the size of the stones, the anatomical features of the kidney and its function, and to accurately plan the operative approach. PCNL was performed in the prone-position; lithotripsy was performed with a double, pneumatic and ultrasonic intracorporeal lithotripter Swiss LithoClast Master with the use of the Karl Storz 24–26 fr nephroscope. Postoperatively, patients were monitored on the 1st, 7th, and 30th post-operative day, determining the demographic and clinical characteristics, the efficacy of PCNL, perioperative blood loss, the duration of the operative procedure, the duration of hospital stay, and the resulting intraoperative and post-operative complications.

RESULTS: The study included eight men (57.1%) and six women (42.8%). The mean age of the patients was 52.35 ± 11.00. In 5 (35.71%) patients, the stones were localized in the left kidney, and in 9 (64.28%) patients in the right kidney. The average body mass index was 25.11 ± 3.92 kg/m². The average area of the stones was 371.24 ± 131.86 mm². Eleven (78.57%) patients had simplex stones, while 3 (21.42%) had complex stones (staghorn stones and multiple stones). The stones were localized in the renal pelvis, upper, middle, and lower calyx at 5 (35.71%), 2 (14.28%), 4 (28.57%), and 3 (21.42%) patients, respectively. The mean value of pre- and post-operative serum hemoglobin was 13.94 ± 1.00 g/dl and 11.77 ± 1.51 g/dl, respectively. The effectiveness of the procedure on the 1st post-operative day assessed by ultrasound diagnostics and kidney-ureter-bladder X-ray was 78.57%. The success rate on the 30th post-operative day after additional procedures was 92.85%. The average operating time in the entire series was 119.28 ± 9.42 min. The average hospital stay was 5.57 ± 1.11 days. The average operative blood loss was 2.19 ± 0.88 g/dl.

CONCLUSION: The results of this retrospectively prospective study confirm that PCNL is a minimally invasive, safe, and effective method for removing renal stones. This method, with the development of new technologies, has an increasingly important role in the modern surgical treatment of nephrolithiasis. PCNL can also be performed in the early stages of the learning curve without compromising patient safety and treatment benefits. The procedure is safe and effective, performed even by less experienced urologists if the protocols established for this procedure are followed. This can achieve a rate of success comparable to most established standards without causing major complications.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Turney BW. Trends in urological stone disease. BJU Int. 2011;24:382-6.

Rosa M, Usai P, Miano R, Kim FJ, Agrò E, Bove P, et al. Recent finding and new technologies in nephrolithiasis: A review of the recent literature. BMC Urology. 2013;13:10-35. https://doi. org/10.1186/1471-2490-13-10

Fernström I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976;10(3):257-9. PMid:1006190

Gupta NP, Mishra S, Seth A, Anand A. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in abnormal kidneys: Single-center experience. Urology. 2009;73(4):710-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.10.070 PMid:19193423

Liatsikos EN, Kallidonis P, Stolzenburg JU, Ost M, Keeley F, Traxer O, et al. Percutaneous management of staghorn stones in horseshoe kidneys: A multi-institutional experience. J Endourol. 2010;24(4):531-6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0264 PMid:20218888

Dobson G, Chong M, Chow L, Flexman A, Kurrek M, Laflamme C, et al. Guidelines to the practice of anesthesia-revised edition 2017. Can J Anaesth. 2017;64(1):65-91. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12630-016-0749-0 PMid:27837405

Rassweiler J, Rassweiler MC, Kenngott H, Frede T, Michel MS, Alken P, et al. The past, present and future of minimally invasive therapy in urology: A review and speculative outlook. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2013;22(4):200-9. https://doi.org/ 10.3109/13645706.2013.816323 PMid:23808367

Resorlu B, Unsal A, Tepeler A, Atis G, Tokatli Z, Oztuna D, et al. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children with moderate-size kidney stones: Results of multi-institutional analysis. Urology. 2012;80(3):519-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.018 PMid:22673546

Akman T, Binbay M, Ozgor F, Ugurlu M, Tekinarslan E, Kezer C, et al. Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde flexible nephrolithotripsy for the management of 2-4 cm stones: A matched pair analysis. BJU Int. 2012;109(9):1384- 9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2011.10691.x PMid:22093679

Muslumanoglu AY, Tefekli A, Karadag MA, Tok A, Sari E, Berberoglu Y. Impact of percutaneous access point number and location on complication and success rates in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int. 2006;77(4):340-6. https://doi. org/10.1159/000096339 PMid:17135785

Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Arnhem, Netherlands: European Association of Urology; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eururo.2015.07.041

Fuchs GJ, Patel A. Treatment of renal stones. In: Smith AD, Badlani GH, Bagley DH, editors. Smith’s Textbook of Endourology. St Louis: Quality Medical Publishing; 1996. p. 590-621.

Cracco CM, Scoffone CM, Scarpa RM. New developments in percutaneous techniques for simple and complex branched renal stones. Curr Opin Urol. 2011;21(2):154-60. https://doi. org/10.1097/mou.0b013e3283436d32 PMid:21252683

de la Rosette JJ, Tsakiris P, Ferrandino MN, Elsakka AM, Rioja J, Preminger GM. Beyond prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A comprehensive review. Eur Urol. 2008;54(6):1262-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.08.012 PMid:18707807

Armitage JN, Irving SO, Burgess NA, British Association of Urological Surgeons Section of Endourology. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the United Kingdom: Results of a prospective data registry. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1188-93. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.003 PMid:22244778

El-Assmy AM, Shokeir AA, Mohsen T, El-Tabey N, El-Nahas AR, Shoma AM, et al. Renal access by urologist or radiologist for percutaneous nephrolithotomy-is it still an issue? J Urol. 2007;178(3):916-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.015

Munver R, Delvecchio FC, Newman GE, Preminger GM. Critical analysis of supracostal access for percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol. 2001;166(4):1242-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0022-5347(05)65745-x PMid:11547050

Falahatkar S, Neiroomand H, Akbarpour M, Emadi SA, Khaki N. One-shot versus metal telescopic dilation technique for tract creation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Comparison of safety and efficacy. J Endourol. 2009;23(4):615-8. https://doi. org/10.1089/end.2008.0330 PMid:19335153

Baldwin D, Maynes LJ, Desai PJ, Jellison FC, Tsai CK, Barker GR. A novel single step percutaneous access sheath: The initial experience. J Urol. 2006;175(1):156-61. https://doi. org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)00020-0

Safak M, Gogus C, Soygur T. Nephrostomy tract dilation using a balloon dilator in percutaneous renal surgery: Experience with 95 cases and comparison with the fascial dilator system. Urol Int. 2003;71(4):382-4. https://doi.org/10.1159/000074090 PMid:14646437

Stoller ML, Wolf JS Jr., St Lezin MA. Estimated blood loss and transfusion rates associated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol. 1994;152(6-1):1977-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0022-5347(17)32283-8 PMid:7966654

Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S, Bapat S, Desai M. Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Prospective study. J Endourol. 2004;18(8):715-22. https://doi. org/10.1089/0892779042360599 PMid:15659890

Kurtulus FO, Fazlioglu A, Tandogdu Z, Aydin M, Karaca S, Cek M. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Primary patients versus patients with history of open renal surgery. J Endourol. 2008;22(12):2671-6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.0431 PMid:19099516

Gupta N, Mishra S, Nayyar R, Seth A, Anand A. Comparative analysis of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with and without a history of open stone surgery: Single center experience. J Endourol. 2009;23(6):913-6. https://doi. org/10.1089/end.2008.0660 PMid:19496724

Falahatkar S, Panahandeh Z, Ashoori E, Akbarpour M, Khaki N. What is the difference between percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with and without previous open renal surgery? J Endourol. 2009;23(7):1107-10. https://doi.org/10.1089/ end.2008.0630 PMid:19530947

Singh I, Kumar A, Kumar P. “Ambulatory PCNL” (tubeless PCNL under regional anesthesia)-a preliminary report of 10 cases. Int Urol Nephrol. 2005;37(1):35-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11255-004-6706-9 PMid:16132756

Shahrour W, Andonian S. Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Initial series. Urology. 2010;76(6):1288-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.08.001

Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, Denstedt JD, Grasso M, Gutierrez-Aceves J, et al. Lower pole I: A prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol. 2001;166(6):2072-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0022-5347(05)65508-5 PMid:11696709

Giusti G, Piccinelli A, Maugeri O, Benetti A, Taverna G, Graziotti P. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Tubeless or not tubeless? Urol Res. 2009;37(3):153-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00240-009-0183-7 PMid:19326109

Shoma AM, Elshal AM. Nephrostomy tube placement after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Critical evaluation through a prospective randomized study. Urology. 2012;79(4):771-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.09.042 PMid:22130359

Bayar G, Kadihasanoglu M, Aydin M, Sariogullari U, Tanriverdi O, Kendirici M. The effect of stone localization on the success and complication rates of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J. 2014;11(6):1938-42. PMid:25433471

Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D’A Honey RJ, Pace KT. A comparison of treatment modalities for renal stones between 100 and 300 mm2: Are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy equivalent? J Endourol. 2011;25(3):481. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0208 PMid:21351888

Netto NR Jr., Ikonomidis J, Ikari O, Claro JA. Comparative study of percutaneous access for staghorn stones. Urology. 2005;65(4):659-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.10.081 PMid:15833502

Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K, Sari E, Berberoglu Y, Baykal M, et al. Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified clavien grading system: Looking for a standard. Eur Urol. 2008;53(1):184-90. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.06.049 PMid:17651892

Troxel SA, Low RK. Renal intrapelvic pressure during percutaneous nephrolithotomy and its correlation with the development of postoperative fever. J Urol. 2002;168(4-1):1348- 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)64446-1 PMid:12352390

Shaban A, Kodera A, Elghoneimy MN, Orban T, Mursi K, Hegazy A. Safety and efficacy of supracostal access in percutaneous renal surgery. J Endourol. 2008;22(1):29-34. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.0054 PMid:18095859

Downloads

Published

2020-08-30

How to Cite

1.
Stojanoski I, Krstev T, Iievski L, Tufekgioski N, Stavridis S. Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Single-center Initial Experience. Open Access Maced J Med Sci [Internet]. 2020 Aug. 30 [cited 2024 Nov. 21];8(B):838-44. Available from: https://oamjms.eu/index.php/mjms/article/view/5257