Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA.
J Endourol. 2010 Nov;24(11):1733-7. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0191. Epub 2010 Oct 4.
We evaluated percutaneous access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) that was obtained by interventional radiologists or urologists at a single academic institution and compared access outcomes and complications.
The records of 233 patients who underwent PCNL at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2000 and 2008 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were stratified according to percutaneous access by urologists (group 1) or a group of interventional radiologists (group 2) in 195 and 38 patients, respectively. Radiologist-acquired access was performed for collecting system decompression in 33.3% of patients in group 2. A predicted access difficulty score was calculated using demographic, stone, and operative variables. Percutaneous access complications and stone-free rates were compared between groups.
Mean patient age was 53 ± 16 years (51% male, range 19-90 y) and 58 ± 17 years (62% male, range 25-95 y) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Use of multiple access tracts (4.3% vs 5.4%; P = 0.54), mean stone diameter (3.5 ± 1.8 cm vs 3.6 ± 1.9 cm; P = 0.97), and percentage of supracostal tracts (36% vs 35%; P = 0.63) were comparable between groups. Mean access difficulty parameters were comparable between groups. The percentage of staghorn calculi (39% vs 30%; P = 0.28) and number of obese (body mass index > 30) patients (30% vs 38%; P = 0.34) were also comparable between groups 1 and 2. The complication rate was the same in the two groups (14.3% vs 13.5%; P = 0.52). The overall stone-free rate was significantly greater in the urology access group (99% vs 92.1%; P = 0.033) on univariate analysis. Radiologist-obtained access could not be used in 36.8% of patients, necessitating additional access tract placement at the time of surgery.
Urologist-obtained access is safe and effective for PCNL. Access obtained by radiologists for decompression of infected or obstructed systems often is not adequate for PCNL. Despite similar stone complexity and access difficulty, urologist-obtained access was associated with a statistically significant improvement in overall stone-free rate.
我们评估了在单一学术机构中由介入放射科医生或泌尿科医生获得的经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)的经皮入路,并比较了入路结果和并发症。
回顾性分析了 2000 年至 2008 年期间在匹兹堡大学医学中心接受 PCNL 的 233 例患者的记录。根据泌尿科医生(第 1 组)或一组介入放射科医生(第 2 组)获得的经皮入路,将患者分为 195 例和 38 例。在第 2 组中,33.3%的患者进行了经皮入路以进行集合系统减压。使用人口统计学,结石和手术变量计算了预测的入路难度评分。比较了两组之间的经皮入路并发症和结石清除率。
第 1 组和第 2 组患者的平均年龄分别为 53 ± 16 岁(51%为男性,年龄范围为 19-90 岁)和 58 ± 17 岁(62%为男性,年龄范围为 25-95 岁)。使用多个入路(4.3%对 5.4%;P = 0.54),平均结石直径(3.5 ± 1.8 cm 对 3.6 ± 1.9 cm;P = 0.97)和肋上入路的百分比(36%对 35%;P = 0.63)在两组之间相似。两组之间的平均入路难度参数相似。鹿角结石的百分比(39%对 30%;P = 0.28)和肥胖患者(体重指数> 30)的数量(30%对 38%;P = 0.34)在第 1 组和第 2 组之间也相似。两组的并发症发生率相同(14.3%对 13.5%;P = 0.52)。在单变量分析中,泌尿科医生获得的入路组的总体结石清除率显著更高(99%对 92.1%;P = 0.033)。
泌尿科医生获得的入路对于 PCNL 是安全有效的。放射科医生获得的用于减压感染或阻塞系统的入路通常不适用于 PCNL。尽管结石复杂性和入路难度相似,但泌尿科医生获得的入路与总体结石清除率的统计学显著改善相关。