Comparative Analysis of Safety and Efficacy Between Anterior and Posterior Calyceal Entry in Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Journal of endourology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-29 DOI:10.1089/end.2024.0508
Anna Ricapito, Kavita Gupta, Ziv Savin, Kasmira R Gupta, Christopher Connors, Raymond Khargi, Alan J Yaghoubian, Blair Gallante, William M Atallah, Mantu Gupta
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Safety and Efficacy Between Anterior and Posterior Calyceal Entry in Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.","authors":"Anna Ricapito, Kavita Gupta, Ziv Savin, Kasmira R Gupta, Christopher Connors, Raymond Khargi, Alan J Yaghoubian, Blair Gallante, William M Atallah, Mantu Gupta","doi":"10.1089/end.2024.0508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> One advantage of supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sPCNL) is the ability to access anterior as well as posterior calyces, but the safety and efficacy of anterior calyceal entry has never been investigated to our knowledge. We prospectively evaluated patients scheduled for sPCNL comparing anterior and posterior calyceal access. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> After Institutional Review Board approval, we prospectively enrolled 100 consecutive patients undergoing sPCNL from February to September 2023. Primary outcomes included intraoperative complications, blood transfusions, 30-day complication rates, and emergency department (ED) visits or readmissions. Secondary outcomes included stone-free rates (SFR). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Seventy-six patients had anterior calyceal entry and 24 had posterior. No significant differences were found in terms of baseline demographics (age, body mass index), stone characteristics (location, density, complexity), or intraoperative features (operative time, location of access). Safety outcomes, including intraoperative complications (1% <i>vs</i> 4%), blood transfusions (3% <i>vs</i> 8%), 30-day complication rates (17% <i>vs</i> 21%), and ED visits (1% <i>vs</i> 0) or readmissions (11% <i>vs</i> 21%) were comparable between groups. Overall SFRs were equivalent (86% <i>vs</i> 90%). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> We found that anterior and posterior accesses in sPCNL offer similar safety and efficacy, with no significant differences in complications or SFRs. Surgeons can select either approach based on patient anatomy and surgical needs without concern for increased complications. Further research is necessary to confirm these findings and guide best practices for calyx selection in sPCNL.</p>","PeriodicalId":15723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endourology","volume":" ","pages":"19-25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endourology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2024.0508","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: One advantage of supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sPCNL) is the ability to access anterior as well as posterior calyces, but the safety and efficacy of anterior calyceal entry has never been investigated to our knowledge. We prospectively evaluated patients scheduled for sPCNL comparing anterior and posterior calyceal access. Materials and Methods: After Institutional Review Board approval, we prospectively enrolled 100 consecutive patients undergoing sPCNL from February to September 2023. Primary outcomes included intraoperative complications, blood transfusions, 30-day complication rates, and emergency department (ED) visits or readmissions. Secondary outcomes included stone-free rates (SFR). Results: Seventy-six patients had anterior calyceal entry and 24 had posterior. No significant differences were found in terms of baseline demographics (age, body mass index), stone characteristics (location, density, complexity), or intraoperative features (operative time, location of access). Safety outcomes, including intraoperative complications (1% vs 4%), blood transfusions (3% vs 8%), 30-day complication rates (17% vs 21%), and ED visits (1% vs 0) or readmissions (11% vs 21%) were comparable between groups. Overall SFRs were equivalent (86% vs 90%). Conclusion: We found that anterior and posterior accesses in sPCNL offer similar safety and efficacy, with no significant differences in complications or SFRs. Surgeons can select either approach based on patient anatomy and surgical needs without concern for increased complications. Further research is necessary to confirm these findings and guide best practices for calyx selection in sPCNL.

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
仰卧位经皮肾镜取石术中颅骨前方入路与颅骨后方入路的安全性和有效性对比分析
简介:仰卧位经皮肾镜取石术(sPCNL)的一个优点是既能进入前肾盏,也能进入后肾盏,但据我们所知,前肾盏进入的安全性和有效性还从未进行过研究。我们对计划接受 sPCNL 的患者进行了前瞻性评估,并对前方和后方盏入口进行了比较。材料和方法:经机构审查委员会批准后,我们在 2023 年 2 月至 9 月期间前瞻性地招募了 100 名连续接受 sPCNL 的患者。主要结果包括术中并发症、输血、30 天并发症发生率、急诊科就诊率或再入院率。次要结果包括无结石率(SFR)。结果:76名患者进行了前路肾盏置入术,24名患者进行了后路肾盏置入术。在基线人口统计学(年龄、体重指数)、结石特征(位置、密度、复杂性)或术中特征(手术时间、入路位置)方面没有发现明显差异。安全性结果,包括术中并发症(1% 对 4%)、输血(3% 对 8%)、30 天并发症发生率(17% 对 21%)、急诊室就诊率(1% 对 0)或再入院率(11% 对 21%)在各组之间不相上下。总体 SFRs 相当(86% 对 90%)。结论:我们发现,sPCNL 的前路和后路入路具有相似的安全性和有效性,并发症或 SFR 无显著差异。外科医生可以根据患者的解剖结构和手术需求选择其中一种方法,而不必担心并发症的增加。有必要开展进一步的研究来证实这些发现,并指导在 sPCNL 中选择花萼的最佳实践。
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
Journal of endourology
Journal of endourology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.80%
发文量
254
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Endourology, JE Case Reports, and Videourology are the leading peer-reviewed journal, case reports publication, and innovative videojournal companion covering all aspects of minimally invasive urology research, applications, and clinical outcomes. The leading journal of minimally invasive urology for over 30 years, Journal of Endourology is the essential publication for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest surgical technologies in endoscopic, laparoscopic, robotic, and image-guided procedures as they apply to benign and malignant diseases of the genitourinary tract. This flagship journal includes the companion videojournal Videourology™ with every subscription. While Journal of Endourology remains focused on publishing rigorously peer reviewed articles, Videourology accepts original videos containing material that has not been reported elsewhere, except in the form of an abstract or a conference presentation. Journal of Endourology coverage includes: The latest laparoscopic, robotic, endoscopic, and image-guided techniques for treating both benign and malignant conditions Pioneering research articles Controversial cases in endourology Techniques in endourology with accompanying videos Reviews and epochs in endourology Endourology survey section of endourology relevant manuscripts published in other journals.
期刊最新文献
Letter to the Editor: Caution in Interpreting Retrospective Data on Percutaneous Nephrostomy and Retrograde Ureteral Stenting for Obstructive Pyelonephritis. MRI Fusion Cryoablation: Is There an Outcome Difference Between Anterior and Posterior Lesions? Association Between Renal Pelvis Urine Density and the Risk of Infectious Complications after Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery. Development of Patient-Specific Nomogram to Assist in Clinical Decision-Making for Single Port Versus Multi-Port Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Report from the Single Port Advanced Robotic Consortium. Emerging Role of Laser Lithotripsy for Bladder Stones: Real-World Outcomes from Two European Endourology Centers with a Systematic Review of Literature.
×
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