常规和微型经皮肾取石术中结石清除率和肾造瘘需要的比较。

Muhammad Jafar, W. Syed, Sana Khalid
{"title":"常规和微型经皮肾取石术中结石清除率和肾造瘘需要的比较。","authors":"Muhammad Jafar, W. Syed, Sana Khalid","doi":"10.29052/ijehsr.v10.i4.2022.416-421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The increased renal stone size affects the stone clearance rate and the need for nephrostomy in (Percutaneous nephrolithotomy) PCNL. Also, complete stone clearance of bulky renal calculi causes blood loss during PCNL, resulting in hemoglobin drop and sometimes requiring transfusion. This is a frequently encountered phenomenon and is quite problematic for urologists and patients. This study aimed to determine the rate of stone clearance and nephrostomy needed in Mini-PCNL over Conventional PCNL. \nMethodology: A comparative study was conducted at the urology department of PIMS, Islamabad. A total of eighty (n=80) adult patients of either gender between ages 18-65 years were enrolled. Subjects enrolled had radiographic evidence of renal stones of > 1cm. Group A patients underwent conventional PCNL procedures, and Group B patients underwent Mini PNCL. The rates of stone clearance nephrostomy needed were compared between the two study groups.   \nResults: The mean age of study participants in group A was (33.7 ± 12.1) and in group B (36.5 ± 11.1). The mean sizes of the stone were 2.4 cm and 2.7 cm in groups A and B, respectively. X-rays were used to assess the stone clearance rate on the first operative day in both study groups. Stones were cleared in group-A at 87.5% (n=35) and in group B at 82.5% (n=33). Nephrostomy was needed in group A at 50.0% (n=20) and in group B at 47.5% (n=19).   \nConclusion: The stone clearance rate and the need for a nephrostomy tube were nearly similar in both intervention groups.","PeriodicalId":34196,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Endorsing Health Science Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of stone clearance rate and need of nephrostomy in conventional versus mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy.\",\"authors\":\"Muhammad Jafar, W. Syed, Sana Khalid\",\"doi\":\"10.29052/ijehsr.v10.i4.2022.416-421\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The increased renal stone size affects the stone clearance rate and the need for nephrostomy in (Percutaneous nephrolithotomy) PCNL. Also, complete stone clearance of bulky renal calculi causes blood loss during PCNL, resulting in hemoglobin drop and sometimes requiring transfusion. This is a frequently encountered phenomenon and is quite problematic for urologists and patients. This study aimed to determine the rate of stone clearance and nephrostomy needed in Mini-PCNL over Conventional PCNL. \\nMethodology: A comparative study was conducted at the urology department of PIMS, Islamabad. A total of eighty (n=80) adult patients of either gender between ages 18-65 years were enrolled. Subjects enrolled had radiographic evidence of renal stones of > 1cm. Group A patients underwent conventional PCNL procedures, and Group B patients underwent Mini PNCL. The rates of stone clearance nephrostomy needed were compared between the two study groups.   \\nResults: The mean age of study participants in group A was (33.7 ± 12.1) and in group B (36.5 ± 11.1). The mean sizes of the stone were 2.4 cm and 2.7 cm in groups A and B, respectively. X-rays were used to assess the stone clearance rate on the first operative day in both study groups. Stones were cleared in group-A at 87.5% (n=35) and in group B at 82.5% (n=33). Nephrostomy was needed in group A at 50.0% (n=20) and in group B at 47.5% (n=19).   \\nConclusion: The stone clearance rate and the need for a nephrostomy tube were nearly similar in both intervention groups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34196,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Endorsing Health Science Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Endorsing Health Science Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29052/ijehsr.v10.i4.2022.416-421\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Endorsing Health Science Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29052/ijehsr.v10.i4.2022.416-421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:肾结石大小的增加影响PCNL的结石清除率和肾造瘘的需要。此外,大块肾结石的完全结石清除会导致PCNL期间的失血,导致血红蛋白下降,有时需要输血。这是一种经常遇到的现象,对泌尿科医生和患者来说是一个很大的问题。本研究旨在确定Mini PCNL与常规PCNL相比所需的结石清除率和肾造瘘率。方法:在伊斯兰堡PIMS泌尿外科进行比较研究。共有80名(n=80)年龄在18-65岁之间的任何性别的成年患者被纳入研究。入选的受试者有肾结石>1cm的放射学证据。A组患者接受常规PCNL手术,B组患者接受Mini-PNCL。比较两个研究组所需的结石清除率。结果:A组和B组受试者的平均年龄分别为(33.7±12.1)和(36.5±11.1)。A和B组的结石平均大小分别为2.4厘米和2.7厘米。两个研究组均使用X光片评估第一个手术日的结石清除率。结石清除率A组为87.5%(n=35),B组为82.5%(n=33)。A组需要肾造瘘50.0%(n=20),B组需要肾造口47.5%(n=19)。结论:两个干预组的结石清除率和肾造瘘管的需求几乎相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of stone clearance rate and need of nephrostomy in conventional versus mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Background: The increased renal stone size affects the stone clearance rate and the need for nephrostomy in (Percutaneous nephrolithotomy) PCNL. Also, complete stone clearance of bulky renal calculi causes blood loss during PCNL, resulting in hemoglobin drop and sometimes requiring transfusion. This is a frequently encountered phenomenon and is quite problematic for urologists and patients. This study aimed to determine the rate of stone clearance and nephrostomy needed in Mini-PCNL over Conventional PCNL. Methodology: A comparative study was conducted at the urology department of PIMS, Islamabad. A total of eighty (n=80) adult patients of either gender between ages 18-65 years were enrolled. Subjects enrolled had radiographic evidence of renal stones of > 1cm. Group A patients underwent conventional PCNL procedures, and Group B patients underwent Mini PNCL. The rates of stone clearance nephrostomy needed were compared between the two study groups.   Results: The mean age of study participants in group A was (33.7 ± 12.1) and in group B (36.5 ± 11.1). The mean sizes of the stone were 2.4 cm and 2.7 cm in groups A and B, respectively. X-rays were used to assess the stone clearance rate on the first operative day in both study groups. Stones were cleared in group-A at 87.5% (n=35) and in group B at 82.5% (n=33). Nephrostomy was needed in group A at 50.0% (n=20) and in group B at 47.5% (n=19).   Conclusion: The stone clearance rate and the need for a nephrostomy tube were nearly similar in both intervention groups.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Non-Invasive Approaches in Interventional Cardiology for Addressing Cardiovascular Disease Burden in Low-Income Countries. A new chapter begins in the Journal of Health Science Research Burden of rifampicin resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among apparently healthy students at the University of Jos, Jos, Nigeria Knowledge, attitude and practices of abattoir workers and veterinarians toward meat safety in abattoir or slaughter slabs within Uyo Metropolis, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria Variations in antioxidant status in ischemic stroke: A case control study in Indian population
×
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