- Email: [email protected]
Comparison of papillary vs nonpapillary access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy
4th EULIS Meeting Vienna, Austria
105
Comparison of papillary vs nonpapillary access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(7);e2581
Kucuk E.V. 1 , Tahra A. 1 , Sobay R. 1 , Bindayi A. 1 , Sarica K. 2 1
Health Sciences University Umraniye Teaching Hospital, Dept. of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey, 2Health Sciences University Kartal Teaching Hospital,
Dept. of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey Introduction & Objectives: Recent literature suggests that papillary access of the renal calix is the accepted method during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). In our clinic practise we make puncture at the infundibulum or the direction of the pelvis in cases where papillary access couldn’t be done or is not possible due to rotation of kidney. This study aims to compare papillary vs nonpapillary access in the terms of blood loss during PCNL. Material & Methods: Patients with renal stones over 2 cm whom treated with PCNL between 2016-2017 were analyzed and divided into two groups, retrospectively. Postoperative blood loss, operative time, stone free status were analyzed. Results: Seventy two patients with papilary access and 56 patients with nonpapillary access were analyzed. Age, stone size, body mass index, comorbidities were similar (p=0.7, 0,66, 0,83, respectively). Blood loss(postoperative hemoglobin drop), stone free status and transfusion rates were also similar (p=0.8, 0,76, 0, 83, respectively). Operative time was similar but florosocopy time was higher in papillary group (p=0.67 and p<0,05, respectively). Overal complication rates were %6 vs %6.1 and were also similar. Conclusions: In the terms of blood loss, postoperative complicaiton rates and stone free status, nonpapillary access is safe and effective method in PCNL.
Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(7);e2581
105
Comparison of papillary vs nonpapillary access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(7);e2581
Kucuk E.V. 1 , Tahra A. 1 , Sobay R. 1 , Bindayi A. 1 , Sarica K. 2 1
Health Sciences University Umraniye Teaching Hospital, Dept. of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey, 2Health Sciences University Kartal Teaching Hospital,
Dept. of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey Introduction & Objectives: Recent literature suggests that papillary access of the renal calix is the accepted method during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). In our clinic practise we make puncture at the infundibulum or the direction of the pelvis in cases where papillary access couldn’t be done or is not possible due to rotation of kidney. This study aims to compare papillary vs nonpapillary access in the terms of blood loss during PCNL. Material & Methods: Patients with renal stones over 2 cm whom treated with PCNL between 2016-2017 were analyzed and divided into two groups, retrospectively. Postoperative blood loss, operative time, stone free status were analyzed. Results: Seventy two patients with papilary access and 56 patients with nonpapillary access were analyzed. Age, stone size, body mass index, comorbidities were similar (p=0.7, 0,66, 0,83, respectively). Blood loss(postoperative hemoglobin drop), stone free status and transfusion rates were also similar (p=0.8, 0,76, 0, 83, respectively). Operative time was similar but florosocopy time was higher in papillary group (p=0.67 and p<0,05, respectively). Overal complication rates were %6 vs %6.1 and were also similar. Conclusions: In the terms of blood loss, postoperative complicaiton rates and stone free status, nonpapillary access is safe and effective method in PCNL.
Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(7);e2581