Department of Urology, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
Department of Urology, SLK Hospital Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg, Heilbronn, Germany.
World J Urol. 2020 Feb;38(2):447-453. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02801-y. Epub 2019 May 9.
To compare iPad-assisted (Apple Inc., Cupertino, USA) percutaneous access to the kidney to the standard puncturing technique for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).
For the iPad-assisted PCNL, a computed tomography is performed prior to surgery, using fiducial radiopaque markers. The important anatomical structures (i.e. kidney, stones) are segmented using specific software enabling the superimposition of images semi-transparently on the iPad by marker-based navigation. Twenty-two patients underwent an iPad-assisted percutaneous puncture of the kidney for PCNL. Twenty-two patients of the clinical database from the Urological Department SLK Hospital Heilbronn, who underwent the standard puncturing technique, were matched to these patients. Matching criteria were age, gender, stone volume, body mass index, stone site and the absence of anatomical variation. Puncture time, radiation exposure and number of attempts for a successful puncture were evaluated. All procedures were performed by two experienced urologists. The standard puncturing method consisted of a combination of ultrasound and fluoroscopy guidance. Chi-square and t test were used to ensure that there was no difference in the matching criteria between the groups. To compare the two methods, U test, Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square test were used.
Examination of radiation exposure showed a significant difference between the two groups in favour of the standard puncturing method (p < 0.01) and puncture time (p = 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in puncturing attempts (p = 0.45).
The iPad-assisted navigation, with the objective being to puncture the renal collecting system, represents a new technique (IDEAL criteria 2b), which proved to be applicable in clinical practice, but still has potential for technical improvement.
比较 iPad 辅助(美国苹果公司,库比蒂诺)经皮肾穿刺取石术(PCNL)与标准穿刺技术。
在手术前,使用基准放射性不透射线标记物进行 CT 扫描。使用特定软件对重要的解剖结构(即肾脏、结石)进行分割,该软件可以通过基于标记的导航将图像半透明地叠加到 iPad 上。22 例患者接受了 iPad 辅助经皮肾穿刺取石术(PCNL)。在临床数据库中,从 SLK 医院 Heilbronn 的泌尿科部门匹配了 22 例接受标准穿刺技术的患者。匹配标准为年龄、性别、结石体积、体重指数、结石部位和解剖变异的缺失。评估了穿刺时间、辐射暴露和成功穿刺的尝试次数。所有手术均由两名经验丰富的泌尿科医生进行。标准穿刺方法由超声和透视引导相结合。使用卡方检验和 t 检验以确保两组之间在匹配标准上没有差异。为了比较两种方法,使用 U 检验、Kruskal-Wallis 和卡方检验。
检查辐射暴露显示,标准穿刺方法(p < 0.01)和穿刺时间(p = 0.01)在两组之间存在显著差异。然而,穿刺尝试次数没有显著差异(p = 0.45)。
以穿刺肾集合系统为目的的 iPad 辅助导航代表了一种新技术(IDEAL 标准 2b),已被证明在临床实践中是可行的,但仍有技术改进的潜力。