Publication:
Safety of Upper Pole Puncture in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with the Guidance of Ultrasonography versus Fluoroscopy: A Comparative Study

dc.contributor.authorTANIDIR, YILÖREN
dc.contributor.authorsSahan, Ahmet; Cubuk, Alkan; Ozkaptan, Orkunt; Canakci, Cengiz; Eryildirim, Bilal; Toprak, Tuncay; Tanidir, Yiloren; Ertab, Kasim
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-12T22:44:38Z
dc.date.accessioned2026-01-10T17:15:01Z
dc.date.available2022-03-12T22:44:38Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.description.abstractIntroduction:The aim of this study was to compare the safety of ultrasonography-guided (UG) puncture and fluoroscopy-guided (FG) upper pole access (UPA) in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).Methods:Consecutive patients with a solitary UPA were enrolled into the study from 2012 to 2020 and analyzed in a retrospective manner. In total, 177 patients were divided into 2 groups according to the method during the puncture phase of the access: FG (n= 105) and UG (n= 72). The UG and FG groups were compared in terms of complications (i.e., pleural injury and blood transfusion rate) and surgical outcomes.Results:Gender, side, grade of hydronephrosis, type of access (i.e., supracostal vs. subcostal), Guy's stone score, age, stone diameter, skin-to-stone distance, and stone density were similar in the 2 groups (p> 0.05). Only in 25.9% of cases, UPA was done using a subcostal approach. The overall complication rates were similar between the groups (p> 0.178). For the UG and FG groups, the rate of pleural injury (8.5 vs. 4.1%) and the blood transfusion rate (8.5 vs. 2.8%) were also similar (p> 0.05). The fluoroscopy time and mean hemoglobin drop were significantly lower in the UG group than in the FG group (134.2 vs. 82.2 s, respectively,p= 0.001; 20.8 +/- 9.8 vs. 16.8 +/- 7.9 g/L, respectively,p= 0.001). Stone-free rate (SFR) was also similar in the FG and UG groups (77.1 vs. 75.0%, respectively,p= 0.742).Conclusion:While it is commonly expected that the complication rates are lower in UG puncture for UPA in PCNL than they are in FG puncture, the present study failed to show this difference. However, the radiation exposure time seemed to be lower in UG puncture than FG puncture and had a similar stone-free rate (SFR) for UPA in PCNL.
dc.identifier.doi10.1159/000509448
dc.identifier.eissn1423-0399
dc.identifier.issn0042-1138
dc.identifier.pubmed32726775
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11424/236450
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000565796400015
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherKARGER
dc.relation.ispartofUROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectUpper pole puncture
dc.subjectUltrasonography-guided puncture
dc.subjectFluoroscopy-guided puncture
dc.subjectSafety
dc.subjectPercutaneous nephrolithotomy
dc.subjectSUPRACOSTAL APPROACH
dc.subjectRENAL ACCESS
dc.subjectULTRASOUND
dc.subjectCOMPLICATIONS
dc.subjectEFFICACY
dc.subjectOUTCOMES
dc.subjectPCNL
dc.titleSafety of Upper Pole Puncture in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with the Guidance of Ultrasonography versus Fluoroscopy: A Comparative Study
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.endPage774
oaire.citation.issue9-10
oaire.citation.startPage769
oaire.citation.titleUROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS
oaire.citation.volume104

Files