Standard v mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine modified lithotomy position: a randomized pilot study on 10-25 mm stones.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY ANZ Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1111/ans.19227
Philip McCahy, Anthony Dat, Daniel Gilbourd, Eldho Paul, Shekib Shahbaz
{"title":"Standard v mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine modified lithotomy position: a randomized pilot study on 10-25 mm stones.","authors":"Philip McCahy, Anthony Dat, Daniel Gilbourd, Eldho Paul, Shekib Shahbaz","doi":"10.1111/ans.19227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the recommended treatment for stones >2 cm in size. The majority of PCNL are still conducted with larger telescopes using tracts up to 30F in size. We have conducted a randomized pilot study comparing mini PCNL with our standard 22F PCNL for renal stones between 10 and 25 mm in diameter.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients were randomized to either PCNL (24F Amplatz sheath/22F nephrosocope) or mini PCNL (18F Amplatz sheath/11F nephroscope). All operations were performed in the modified supine position. Patients were reviewed with imaging to assess stone clearance and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen well matched patients were randomized. All procedures were completed as planned and all were tubeless with no complications. There were no differences in operative time, analgesia requirements or length of stay. Seven of nine (77.75%) standard PCNL were completely stone free at CT review with a 2 mm and a 5 mm fragments in the other patients. Four (44.4%) of the mini PCNL group were stone free, with stone fragments 4-10 mm remaining in the others. 40 patients/arm would be required for an adequately powered study.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no advantage in using mini PCNL compared to our standard 24F PCNL in this pilot study. There may be benefits in using mini PCNL compared to the more widely used 30F PCNL and it may be a more cost-effective alternative to laser pyeloscopic stone procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":8158,"journal":{"name":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.19227","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the recommended treatment for stones >2 cm in size. The majority of PCNL are still conducted with larger telescopes using tracts up to 30F in size. We have conducted a randomized pilot study comparing mini PCNL with our standard 22F PCNL for renal stones between 10 and 25 mm in diameter.

Methods: Patients were randomized to either PCNL (24F Amplatz sheath/22F nephrosocope) or mini PCNL (18F Amplatz sheath/11F nephroscope). All operations were performed in the modified supine position. Patients were reviewed with imaging to assess stone clearance and complications.

Results: Eighteen well matched patients were randomized. All procedures were completed as planned and all were tubeless with no complications. There were no differences in operative time, analgesia requirements or length of stay. Seven of nine (77.75%) standard PCNL were completely stone free at CT review with a 2 mm and a 5 mm fragments in the other patients. Four (44.4%) of the mini PCNL group were stone free, with stone fragments 4-10 mm remaining in the others. 40 patients/arm would be required for an adequately powered study.

Conclusion: There was no advantage in using mini PCNL compared to our standard 24F PCNL in this pilot study. There may be benefits in using mini PCNL compared to the more widely used 30F PCNL and it may be a more cost-effective alternative to laser pyeloscopic stone procedures.

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
仰卧位改良碎石术中的标准与迷你经皮肾镜碎石术:针对 10-25 毫米结石的随机试验研究。
背景:经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)是治疗大于 2 厘米结石的推荐疗法。大多数 PCNL 仍在使用较大的肾镜进行,使用的肾镜最大可达 30F 大小。我们进行了一项随机试验研究,比较了迷你 PCNL 和标准 22F PCNL 对直径在 10 到 25 毫米之间的肾结石的治疗效果:患者随机接受 PCNL(24F Amplatz 鞘/22F 肾镜)或迷你 PCNL(18F Amplatz 鞘/11F 肾镜)。所有手术均以改良仰卧位进行。对患者进行造影复查,以评估结石清除情况和并发症:结果:18 名匹配良好的患者被随机选中。所有手术均按计划完成,均为无管手术,无并发症。手术时间、镇痛要求和住院时间均无差异。九名标准 PCNL 患者中有七名(77.75%)在 CT 复查时完全无结石,其他患者的结石碎片分别为 2 毫米和 5 毫米。迷你 PCNL 组中有 4 名患者(44.4%)无结石,其他患者的结石碎片为 4-10 毫米。结论:使用迷你 PCNL 没有优势:在这项试点研究中,与我们的标准 24F PCNL 相比,使用迷你 PCNL 没有优势。与更广泛使用的 30F PCNL 相比,使用迷你 PCNL 可能会有好处,而且它可能是激光肾盂镜取石手术的一种更具成本效益的替代方法。
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
ANZ Journal of Surgery
ANZ Journal of Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
720
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: ANZ Journal of Surgery is published by Wiley on behalf of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons to provide a medium for the publication of peer-reviewed original contributions related to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of surgery and related disciplines. It also provides a programme of continuing education for surgeons. All articles are peer-reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.
期刊最新文献
Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (cPNET): a diagnostic conundrum. Early detection of colonic anastomotic leak. Pointing to success: a discussion of the role of acad achievements in the selection of specialist surgical trainees. Provision and outcomes of publicly funded bariatric surgery in a metropolitan versus a provincial population of New Zealand. Standard v mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine modified lithotomy position: a randomized pilot study on 10-25 mm stones.
×
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