Comparison of radiation exposure for interventional radiology vs urology-guided renal access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY International Urology and Nephrology Pub Date : 2025-01-20 DOI:10.1007/s11255-025-04374-9
Dar Yoffe, Sarah Fashakin, Kenneth Lim, Daniel Marchalik
{"title":"Comparison of radiation exposure for interventional radiology vs urology-guided renal access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy.","authors":"Dar Yoffe, Sarah Fashakin, Kenneth Lim, Daniel Marchalik","doi":"10.1007/s11255-025-04374-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Radiation exposure during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) can vary depending on the method used for renal access. This study aimed to compare fluoroscopy time and dose during PCNL when renal access is achieved via interventional radiology (IR) versus urology.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review of patients who underwent unilateral PCNL between January 2020 and February 2023 was conducted. Patients were categorized by renal access method: endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery performed by a urologist (ECIRS) or IR-assisted. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test and multivariate analyses were done to compare several parameters of the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>66 patients underwent ECIRS (group 1), and 31 underwent IR-assisted access (group 2). The groups were similar in age, BMI, sex, and stone size. The difference in medians for fluoroscopy dose, fluoroscopy time, operative time and length of stay were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Average fluoroscopy dose (39.6 vs. 327 mGy) and time (1.46 vs. 10.9 min), along with average operative time (1.97 vs. 3.00 h) and length of stay (1.26 vs 3.06 days) were all lower in group 1. In the IR group, a positive correlation was noted between BMI and fluoroscopy dose (p < 0.001), though this correlation was absent with ECIRS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PCNL with ECIRS access significantly reduces radiation exposure and operative time compared to IR-assisted access. Additionally, BMI influenced radiation exposure and operative time in the IR group, but not in the ECIRS group. Endoscopic renal access may lower overall radiation exposure and postoperative complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":14454,"journal":{"name":"International Urology and Nephrology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urology and Nephrology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-025-04374-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Radiation exposure during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) can vary depending on the method used for renal access. This study aimed to compare fluoroscopy time and dose during PCNL when renal access is achieved via interventional radiology (IR) versus urology.

Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent unilateral PCNL between January 2020 and February 2023 was conducted. Patients were categorized by renal access method: endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery performed by a urologist (ECIRS) or IR-assisted. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test and multivariate analyses were done to compare several parameters of the two groups.

Results: 66 patients underwent ECIRS (group 1), and 31 underwent IR-assisted access (group 2). The groups were similar in age, BMI, sex, and stone size. The difference in medians for fluoroscopy dose, fluoroscopy time, operative time and length of stay were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Average fluoroscopy dose (39.6 vs. 327 mGy) and time (1.46 vs. 10.9 min), along with average operative time (1.97 vs. 3.00 h) and length of stay (1.26 vs 3.06 days) were all lower in group 1. In the IR group, a positive correlation was noted between BMI and fluoroscopy dose (p < 0.001), though this correlation was absent with ECIRS.

Conclusions: PCNL with ECIRS access significantly reduces radiation exposure and operative time compared to IR-assisted access. Additionally, BMI influenced radiation exposure and operative time in the IR group, but not in the ECIRS group. Endoscopic renal access may lower overall radiation exposure and postoperative complications.

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
经皮肾镜取石术中介入放射照射与泌尿科引导下肾通路的比较。
导读:在经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)中,辐射暴露可能因肾脏通路使用的方法而异。本研究旨在比较通过介入放射学(IR)和泌尿学获得肾脏通路时PCNL的透视时间和剂量。方法:回顾性分析2020年1月至2023年2月期间接受单侧PCNL的患者。患者按肾通道方法分类:由泌尿科医生(ECIRS)或ir辅助的内镜联合肾内手术。采用Wilcoxon秩和检验和多变量分析比较两组的多项参数。结果:66例患者接受了ECIRS(第一组),31例患者接受了ir辅助通路(第二组)。两组患者在年龄、BMI、性别和结石大小方面相似。透视剂量、透视时间、手术时间和住院时间的中位数差异均有统计学意义(p)。结论:与ir辅助下的PCNL相比,经ECIRS通路的PCNL明显减少了辐射暴露和手术时间。此外,BMI对IR组的辐射暴露和手术时间有影响,但对ECIRS组没有影响。内镜下肾脏通路可降低总体辐射暴露和术后并发症。
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
International Urology and Nephrology
International Urology and Nephrology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
329
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: International Urology and Nephrology publishes original papers on a broad range of topics in urology, nephrology and andrology. The journal integrates papers originating from clinical practice.
期刊最新文献
Effectiveness and safety of finerenone in membranous nephropathy patients: a retrospective, real‑world study. Cognitive frailty in maintenance hemodialysis: a scoping review. Supranormal renal function in pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multiparameter analysis to guide clinical management. Comparison of radiation exposure for interventional radiology vs urology-guided renal access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Impact of hydronephrosis on shockwave lithotripsy outcomes for upper ureteral 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