Comparison of two percutaneous nephrolithotomy methods for the treatment of pediatric kidney stones: Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy

被引:1
|
作者
Karkin, Kadir [1 ,4 ]
Aydamirov, Mubariz [2 ]
Aksay, Bugra [1 ]
Kaplan, Eyuep [3 ]
Gurlen, Guclu [1 ]
Altunkol, Adem [1 ]
Ortaoglu, Ferhat [1 ]
Akgun, Omer Faruk [1 ]
Vuruskan, Ediz [1 ]
Gurbuz, Zafer Gokhan [1 ]
机构
[1] Hlth Sci Univ, Adana City Training & Res Hosp, Urol Clin, Adana, Turkiye
[2] Baskent Univ, Alanya Applicat & Res Ctr, Alanya, Turkiye
[3] Abdulkadir Yuksel State Hosp, Urol Clin, Gaziantep, Turkiye
[4] Hlth Sci Univ, Adana City Training & Res Hosp, Dept Urol, Adana, Turkiye
关键词
Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Pediatric Kidney Stones; PRESCHOOL AGE CHILDREN; COMPLICATIONS; EXPERIENCE; MANAGEMENT; EFFICACY; INFANTS; SAFETY;
D O I
10.4081/aiua.2024.12369
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective: In this study, the aim was to compare the results of mini and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the treatment of pediatric kidney stones. Materials and Methods: Data for 128 patients < 18 years of age who underwent mini and standard PCNL due to pediatric kidney stones were retrospectively examined. Patients were divided into two groups: mini-PCNL (16-20 Fr) and standard PCNL (26 Fr). Surgery time, number of punctures to the pelvicalyceal system, hospital stay, postoperative hemoglobin drop, complications and stone-free status (SFR) were compared between the groups. Additional surgical intervention (double-J stent, ureterorenoscopy, secondary PCNL) performed after the surgery was recorded. The absence of residual stones or < 3 mm residual stones on kidney, ureter and bladder radiography (KUB) and ultrasonography (USG) performed in the third postoperative month were accepted as success criteria. Results: There were 32 (43.8%) patients in the mini-PCNL group and 41 (56.2%) patients in the standard PCNL group. The mean age was 9.3 +/- 4.1 years in the mini-PCNL group and 10.1 +/- 5.4 years in the standard PCNL group. Mean stone size in the mini-PCNL group was 2.1 +/- 1.2; while for standard PCNL it was 2.3 +/- 1.4. The mean surgery time was statistically significantly higher in the mini-PCNL group (p = 0.005). There was no difference between the groups in terms of intraoperative double J stent use, postoperative complications and SFR. A double J stent was inserted in two patients in the mini-PCNL group and in one patient in the standard PCNL group due to urine leakage from the nephrostomy tract in the postoperative period. Although the postoperative hemoglobin drop was found to be significantly higher in standard PCNL (p = 0.001), hematuria and blood transfusion rates were low in both groups. Mean hospital stay was shorter in the mini-PCNL group compared to standard PCNL (3.6 +/- 1.2 days vs. 2.5 +/- 1.1; p = 0.018). Conclusions: Although mini-PCNL has longer surgery time compared to standard PCNL, it should be preferred for the treatment of pediatric kidney stones due to advantages such as similar success and complication rates to standard PCNL, short hospital stay and less postoperative hemoglobin drop.
引用
收藏
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy - A comparative study with standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy
    Gupta, NP
    Kesarwani, P
    Goel, R
    Aron, M
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2005, 74 (01) : 58 - 61
  • [32] Comparison of Micro-Percutaneous and Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Gao, Xiaoshuai
    Wang, Wei
    Peng, Liao
    Di, Xingpeng
    Xiao, Kaiwen
    Chen, Jixiang
    Jin, Tao
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2021, 8
  • [33] Safety and efficacy of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of renal stones in pediatric age group
    Mahmood, Sarwar Noori
    Hama, Shakhawan
    Said, Amin
    Mohammed, Rawa O.
    Jaafar, Mzhda Sahib
    BMC NEPHROLOGY, 2025, 26 (01)
  • [34] Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for stones in anomalous-kidneys: a prospective study
    Sanjay Khadgi
    Babu Shrestha
    Hamdy Ibrahim
    Sunil Shrestha
    Mohammed S. ElSheemy
    Ahmed M. Al-Kandari
    Urolithiasis, 2017, 45 : 407 - 414
  • [35] Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for stones in anomalous-kidneys: a prospective study
    Khadgi, Sanjay
    Shrestha, Babu
    Ibrahim, Hamdy
    Shrestha, Sunil
    ElSheemy, Mohammed S.
    Al-Kandari, Ahmed M.
    UROLITHIASIS, 2017, 45 (04) : 407 - 414
  • [36] An alternative for standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy:: Tubeless and stentless percutaneous nephrolithotomy
    Okan IStanbulluog, Mustafa
    Gonen, Murat
    Cicek, Tufan
    Cenker, Ali
    Guvel, Sezgin
    Tekin, Iteri
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2006, 20 : A132 - A132
  • [37] Comparison of the outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of kidney stones: a matched-pair analysis
    Rodrigues, Jose Eduardo Castro Matheus
    Vicentini, Fabio Carvalho
    Danilovic, Alexandre
    Marchini, Giovanni Scala
    Torricelli, Fabio Cesar Miranda
    Batagello, Carlos Alfredo
    Mazzucchi, Eduardo
    Nahas, William Carlos
    REVISTA DA ASSOCIACAO MEDICA BRASILEIRA, 2022, 68 (10): : 1481 - 1485
  • [38] Complications of Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy versus Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
    Channa, Mazhar Ali
    Soomro, Abdul Saboor
    Khalique, Abdul
    Pardip
    Mustafa, Ghulam
    Hussain, Mudasir
    Hussain, Manzoor
    PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL & HEALTH SCIENCES, 2021, 15 (10): : 2859 - 2862
  • [39] Comparison of the results of 16 to 20 French percutaneous access dilatation of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients
    Baydilli, Numan
    Akinsal, Emre Can
    Sonmez, Gokhan
    Demirci, Deniz
    KUWAIT MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2019, 51 (02): : 199 - 204
  • [40] MINI PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY FOR LARGE AND COMPLEX STONES
    Alvarez, Juan Sebastian Rodriguez
    Ho, Louisa
    Kim, Erin
    Chehroudi, Cyrus
    Zampini, Anna
    Gutierrez-Aceves, Jorge
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2024, 211 (05): : E193 - E194