Tepeler Abdulkadir, Akman Tolga, Silay Mesrur Selcuk, Akcay Muzaffer, Ersoz Cevper, Kalkan Senad, Armagan Abdullah, Sarica Kemal
Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey,
Urolithiasis. 2014 Jun;42(3):275-9. doi: 10.1007/s00240-014-0646-3. Epub 2014 Feb 13.
The micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) is a recently introduced percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) technique that is performed through a 4.8 Fr all-seeing needle. We aimed to measure the intrarenal pelvic pressure (IPP) during microperc and compare it with the levels of conventional PNL. A total of 20 patients with 1- to 3-cm renal calculi resistant to shock wave lithotripsy were treated either with microperc (Group-1, n: 10) or conventional PNL (Group-2, n: 10) by the same surgical team. The IPP was measured during different stages (entrance into the collecting system, stone fragmentation, and before termination) of the procedures by an urodynamic machine using the 6 Fr ureteral catheter. All the variables were statistically compared between the two groups. The demographic values of the patients were similar. The operation time and duration of hospitalization were significantly prolonged in conventional PNL group (p = 0.034, p = 0.01, respectively). The mean drop in hematocrit levels was significantly lower in microperc group (3.5 ± 1.5 vs. 1.8 ± 0.8; p = 0.004). The IPP was significantly higher in microperc group during all steps of the procedure. The highest level of the IPP was measured as 30.3 ± 3.9 and 20.1 ± 3.1 mmHg in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively (p < 0.0001). However, the complication and success rates were found comparable. In conclusion, we demonstrate that the level of IPP is significantly increased during microperc compared to conventional PNL. Microperc should be used cautiously in cases with impaired drainage of the collecting system.
微通道经皮肾镜取石术(微通道PCNL)是一种最近引入的经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)技术,通过一根4.8F的可视穿刺针进行操作。我们旨在测量微通道PCNL术中的肾盂内压力(IPP),并将其与传统PCNL的压力水平进行比较。20例冲击波碎石术治疗无效的1至3厘米肾结石患者,由同一手术团队分别采用微通道PCNL(第1组,n = 10)或传统PCNL(第2组,n = 10)治疗。使用6F输尿管导管,通过尿动力学机器在手术的不同阶段(进入集合系统、结石粉碎和结束前)测量IPP。对两组之间的所有变量进行统计学比较。患者的人口统计学数据相似。传统PCNL组的手术时间和住院时间显著延长(分别为p = 0.034,p = 0.01)。微通道PCNL组血细胞比容水平的平均下降幅度显著更低(3.5±1.5 vs. 1.8±0.8;p = 0.004)。在手术的所有步骤中,微通道PCNL组的IPP显著更高。第1组和第2组的IPP最高水平分别测得为30.3±3.9和20.1±3.1 mmHg(p < 0.0001)。然而,并发症发生率和成功率相当。总之,我们证明与传统PCNL相比,微通道PCNL术中IPP水平显著升高。对于集合系统引流受损的病例,应谨慎使用微通道PCNL。