The safety and efficacy of ultrasound versus fluoroscopic percutaneous nephrostomy: A prospective randomized study.

IF 0.7 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urology Annals Pub Date : 2023-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-14 DOI:10.4103/ua.ua_57_22
Ahmed M Moeen, Mostafa Kamel, Mahmoud Khalil, Fathy G Elanany, Mohamed Abdel Basir Sayed, Hosny M Behnsawy
{"title":"The safety and efficacy of ultrasound versus fluoroscopic percutaneous nephrostomy: A prospective randomized study.","authors":"Ahmed M Moeen,&nbsp;Mostafa Kamel,&nbsp;Mahmoud Khalil,&nbsp;Fathy G Elanany,&nbsp;Mohamed Abdel Basir Sayed,&nbsp;Hosny M Behnsawy","doi":"10.4103/ua.ua_57_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study is to compare the outcome of percutaneous nephrostomy by ultrasound (US) versus fluoroscopy including access time, volume of anesthesia required, success rate, and complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred patients were enrolled in a prospective randomized study. Patients were divided into two groups, 50 cases each. Comparing the two groups was done regarding the need for dye, radiation effect, time taken, trial number, rate of complication, volume of anesthesia, and success rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patient demographics were comparable between both groups with no statistically significant difference. According to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification, the complications were Grade I (pain and mild hematuria) in each group. Procedural pain was present in 41 (82%) patients in Group I and in 48 (96%) patients in Group II. It was treated in both groups with a simple analgesic. Mild hematuria was present in 5 (10%) patients in the US group and 13 (26%) in the fluoroscopic group and treated by hemostatic drugs only. There was a statistically significant difference between both groups regarding the volume of required local anesthesia, the trial numbers, the puncture numbers, bleeding, extravasation, and change in the hemoglobin level.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>US percutaneous renal access is a safe and effective modality with a high success rate, less operative time, and complication rate. However, a minimum of 50 cases with some pelvicalyceal system dilation may be preliminary requisites to achieve good orientation and competence in achieving safe US percutaneous renal access for future endourological procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":23633,"journal":{"name":"Urology Annals","volume":"15 2","pages":"215-219"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ae/fd/UA-15-215.PMC10252783.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology Annals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_57_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the outcome of percutaneous nephrostomy by ultrasound (US) versus fluoroscopy including access time, volume of anesthesia required, success rate, and complications.

Methods: One hundred patients were enrolled in a prospective randomized study. Patients were divided into two groups, 50 cases each. Comparing the two groups was done regarding the need for dye, radiation effect, time taken, trial number, rate of complication, volume of anesthesia, and success rate.

Results: Patient demographics were comparable between both groups with no statistically significant difference. According to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification, the complications were Grade I (pain and mild hematuria) in each group. Procedural pain was present in 41 (82%) patients in Group I and in 48 (96%) patients in Group II. It was treated in both groups with a simple analgesic. Mild hematuria was present in 5 (10%) patients in the US group and 13 (26%) in the fluoroscopic group and treated by hemostatic drugs only. There was a statistically significant difference between both groups regarding the volume of required local anesthesia, the trial numbers, the puncture numbers, bleeding, extravasation, and change in the hemoglobin level.

Conclusion: US percutaneous renal access is a safe and effective modality with a high success rate, less operative time, and complication rate. However, a minimum of 50 cases with some pelvicalyceal system dilation may be preliminary requisites to achieve good orientation and competence in achieving safe US percutaneous renal access for future endourological procedures.

Abstract Image

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
超声与荧光镜下经皮肾造瘘术的安全性和有效性:一项前瞻性随机研究。
目的:本研究的目的是比较超声与荧光镜下经皮肾造瘘术的结果,包括入路时间、所需麻醉量、成功率和并发症。方法:将100名患者纳入一项前瞻性随机研究。将患者分为两组,每组50例。比较两组对染料的需要、辐射效果、所需时间、试验次数、并发症发生率、麻醉量和成功率。结果:两组患者的人口统计数据具有可比性,无统计学显著差异。根据改良的Clavien-Dindo分类法,各组的并发症均为I级(疼痛和轻度血尿)。第一组41名(82%)患者和第二组48名(96%)患者出现手术疼痛。两组均使用简单的镇痛药进行治疗。US组有5例(10%)患者出现轻度血尿,荧光镜检查组有13例(26%)患者仅用止血药物治疗。两组在所需局部麻醉量、试验次数、穿刺次数、出血、外渗和血红蛋白水平变化方面存在统计学显著差异。结论:超声经皮肾穿刺是一种安全有效的方法,成功率高,手术时间短,并发症发生率高。然而,至少50例盆腔系统扩张的病例可能是实现良好定向和能力的先决条件,以便在未来的腔内泌尿外科手术中实现安全的US经皮肾穿刺。
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
Urology Annals
Urology Annals UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
审稿时长
31 weeks
期刊最新文献
Renal cell carcinoma with inferior vena cava thrombus: Survival and prognostic factors in surgically treated patients. Survival rate comparisons of angioembolization and neoadjuvant targeted therapy on unresectable renal cell carcinoma patients: A systematic review. Does tilt-retrograde intrarenal surgery enhance stone clearance and offer better surgical ergonomics in patients with renal calculi? A prospective randomized control study. Factor associated with postoperative complications of inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer Test. Feasibility, efficacy, and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery in <1-year age group: A single-center experience.
×
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