Comparison of two percutaneous nephrolithotomy methods for the treatment of pediatric kidney stones: mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia Pub Date : 2024-05-06 DOI:10.4081/aiua.2024.12369
Kadir Karkin, Mubariz Aydamirov, Buğra Aksay, Eyüp Kaplan, Güçlü Gürlen, Adem Altunkol, Ferhat Ortaoğlu, Ömer Faruk Akgün, Ediz Vuruşkan, Zafer Gökhan Gürbüz
{"title":"Comparison of two percutaneous nephrolithotomy methods for the treatment of pediatric kidney stones: mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy.","authors":"Kadir Karkin, Mubariz Aydamirov, Buğra Aksay, Eyüp Kaplan, Güçlü Gürlen, Adem Altunkol, Ferhat Ortaoğlu, Ömer Faruk Akgün, Ediz Vuruşkan, Zafer Gökhan Gürbüz","doi":"10.4081/aiua.2024.12369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In this study, the aim was to compare the results of mini and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the treatment of pediatric kidney stones.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Data for 128 patients < 18 years of age who underwent mini and standard PCNL due to pediatric kidney stones were retrospectively examined. Patients were divided into two groups: mini-PCNL (16-20 Fr) and standard PCNL (26 Fr). Surgery time, number of punctures to the pelvicalyceal system, hospital stay, postoperative hemoglobin drop, complications and stone-free status (SFR) were compared between the groups. Additional surgical intervention (double-J stent, ureterorenoscopy, secondary PCNL) performed after the surgery was recorded. The absence of residual stones or < 3 mm residual stones on kidney, ureter and bladder radiography (KUB) and ultrasonography (USG) performed in the third postoperative month were accepted as success criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 32 (43.8%) patients in the mini-PCNL group and 41 (56.2%) patients in the standard PCNL group. The mean age was 9.3 ± 4.1 years in the mini-PCNL group and 10.1 ± 5.4 years in the standard PCNL group. Mean stone size in the mini-PCNL group was 2.1 ± 1.2; while for standard PCNL it was 2.3 ± 1.4. The mean surgery time was statistically significantly higher in the mini-PCNL group (p = 0.005). There was no difference between the groups in terms of intraoperative double J stent use, postoperative complications and SFR. A double J stent was inserted in two patients in the mini-PCNL group and in one patient in the standard PCNL group due to urine leakage from the nephrostomy tract in the postoperative period. Although the postoperative hemoglobin drop was found to be significantly higher in standard PCNL (p = 0.001), hematuria and blood transfusion rates were low in both groups. Mean hospital stay was shorter in the mini-PCNL group compared to standard PCNL (3.6 ± 1.2 days vs. 2.5 ± 1.1; p = 0.018).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although mini-PCNL has longer surgery time compared to standard PCNL, it should be preferred for the treatment of pediatric kidney stones due to advantages such as similar success and complication rates to standard PCNL, short hospital stay and less postoperative hemoglobin drop.</p>","PeriodicalId":46900,"journal":{"name":"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12369","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: In this study, the aim was to compare the results of mini and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the treatment of pediatric kidney stones.

Materials and methods: Data for 128 patients < 18 years of age who underwent mini and standard PCNL due to pediatric kidney stones were retrospectively examined. Patients were divided into two groups: mini-PCNL (16-20 Fr) and standard PCNL (26 Fr). Surgery time, number of punctures to the pelvicalyceal system, hospital stay, postoperative hemoglobin drop, complications and stone-free status (SFR) were compared between the groups. Additional surgical intervention (double-J stent, ureterorenoscopy, secondary PCNL) performed after the surgery was recorded. The absence of residual stones or < 3 mm residual stones on kidney, ureter and bladder radiography (KUB) and ultrasonography (USG) performed in the third postoperative month were accepted as success criteria.

Results: There were 32 (43.8%) patients in the mini-PCNL group and 41 (56.2%) patients in the standard PCNL group. The mean age was 9.3 ± 4.1 years in the mini-PCNL group and 10.1 ± 5.4 years in the standard PCNL group. Mean stone size in the mini-PCNL group was 2.1 ± 1.2; while for standard PCNL it was 2.3 ± 1.4. The mean surgery time was statistically significantly higher in the mini-PCNL group (p = 0.005). There was no difference between the groups in terms of intraoperative double J stent use, postoperative complications and SFR. A double J stent was inserted in two patients in the mini-PCNL group and in one patient in the standard PCNL group due to urine leakage from the nephrostomy tract in the postoperative period. Although the postoperative hemoglobin drop was found to be significantly higher in standard PCNL (p = 0.001), hematuria and blood transfusion rates were low in both groups. Mean hospital stay was shorter in the mini-PCNL group compared to standard PCNL (3.6 ± 1.2 days vs. 2.5 ± 1.1; p = 0.018).

Conclusions: Although mini-PCNL has longer surgery time compared to standard PCNL, it should be preferred for the treatment of pediatric kidney stones due to advantages such as similar success and complication rates to standard PCNL, short hospital stay and less postoperative hemoglobin drop.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较治疗小儿肾结石的两种经皮肾镜取石术:迷你PCNL和标准PCNL。
研究目的本研究旨在比较迷你型和标准型经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)治疗小儿肾结石的效果:回顾性研究了128名年龄小于18岁、因小儿肾结石而接受迷你和标准PCNL手术的患者的数据。患者被分为两组:迷你 PCNL(16-20 Fr)和标准 PCNL(26 Fr)。比较了两组患者的手术时间、肾盂-阴囊系统穿刺次数、住院时间、术后血红蛋白下降、并发症和无结石状态(SFR)。手术后进行的其他外科干预(双J支架、输尿管造影、二次PCNL)也被记录在案。术后第三个月进行的肾脏、输尿管和膀胱X光检查(KUB)和超声波检查(USG)中无残余结石或残余结石小于3毫米为成功标准:迷你 PCNL 组有 32 名(43.8%)患者,标准 PCNL 组有 41 名(56.2%)患者。迷你 PCNL 组的平均年龄为 9.3 ± 4.1 岁,标准 PCNL 组的平均年龄为 10.1 ± 5.4 岁。迷你 PCNL 组的平均结石大小为 2.1 ± 1.2;标准 PCNL 组的平均结石大小为 2.3 ± 1.4。迷你 PCNL 组的平均手术时间明显高于标准 PCNL 组(P = 0.005)。两组在术中使用双 J 支架、术后并发症和 SFR 方面没有差异。由于术后肾造瘘道漏尿,迷你 PCNL 组有两名患者植入了双 J 支架,标准 PCNL 组有一名患者植入了双 J 支架。虽然标准 PCNL 组的术后血红蛋白下降率明显更高(p = 0.001),但两组的血尿和输血率都很低。与标准 PCNL 相比,迷你 PCNL 组的平均住院时间更短(3.6 ± 1.2 天 vs. 2.5 ± 1.1 天;p = 0.018):结论:虽然迷你PCNL与标准PCNL相比手术时间较长,但由于其成功率和并发症发生率与标准PCNL相似、住院时间短、术后血红蛋白下降较少等优点,应作为治疗小儿肾结石的首选。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
35.70%
发文量
72
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
"Bottoms-up" minimally-invasive approach to inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer management. A single-center comparative study versus open approach and review. A systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term complications of early versus delayed penile prosthesis implantation in patients with ischemic priapism. Adverse events related to laser fibers and laser machines during ureteroscopy and stone lithotripsy: Insights from an updated 10-year analysis of the US MAUDE database. Can serum 17-hydroxy progesterone predict an improvement in semen parameters following micro-varicocelectomy? A prospective study. CFTR Exon 10 deleterious mutations in patients with congenital bilateral absence of vas deferens in a cohort of Pakistani patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1