Safety and efficacy of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20190395Keywords:
Hydronephrotic, Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Proximal ureteral stoneAbstract
Background: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the treatment of large (≥15mm) impacted proximal ureteral stones.
Methods: This was a prospective observational study and was conducted in the Postgraduate Department of Surgery, Govt. Medical College, Srinagar. A total of 60 patients were included in this study.
Results: The mean age (in years) of patients was 38.5±9.31 and range 22-58, the male female ratio was 40:20, the disease laterality (right: left) was 48:12, the mean stone size (in mms) was 17.6±2.11. All the patients were having hydronephrotic kidneys, however, all the renal units were functional. The mean operative time (in minutes) was 62±9.62. The overall success rate was 96.7% after one month of follow-up the stone free rate was 96.7% while as the stone free rate on discharge was 86.7%. The mean hospital stays (in days) was 2.8±1.08. The overall complication rate in this study was 15 patients (25%) which include post-operative fever in 5 patients (8.33%), prolonged hematuria in 4 patients (6.67%), residual stone/disease after 4weeks of follow-up was seen in 2 patients (3.33%) and in 4 patients (6.67%) thoracic complication was seen. However, no ureteral injury, hollow visceral or pelvic perforation was noted. The post-operative analgesic requirement was 100±40.45mgs of Inj. Tramadol. The need of auxiliary procedures was required in 3.3% of patients.
Conclusions: Mini-PCNL is both safe as well as an effective therapy for large impacted proximal ureteral stones with a higher success, stone clearance rate and with acceptable complications.Metrics
References
Scarpa RM, DeLisa A, Porru D, Usai E. Holmium: YAG laser ureterolithotripsy. Euro Urol. 1999;35(3):233-8.
Dretler SP. Prevention of retrograde stone migration during ureteroscopy. Nature Rev Urol. 2006;3(2):60.
Salem HK. A prospective randomized study comparing shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi. Urol. 2009;74(6):1216-21.
Preminger GM1, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck AC, Gallucci M, et al. 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol. 2007;52(6):1610-31.
Lam JS, Greene TD, Gupta M. Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium: YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2002;167(5):1972-6.
Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck C, Gallucci M, et al. 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2418-34.
Araki M, Wong C. Direct comparison of fiberoptic and digital ureteroscopy for upper urinary tract lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2007;21:A80-A81.
El-Nahas AR, Eraky I, El-Assmy AM, Shoma AM, El-Kenawy MR, Abdel-Latif M, et al. Percutaneous treatment of large upper tract stones after urinary diversion. Urol. 2006;68(3):500-4.
Li X, He Z, Wu K, Li SK, Zeng G, Yuan J, et al. Chinese minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the Guangzhou experience. J Endourol. 2009;23(10):1693-7.
Wickaham JEA. The surgical treatment of renal lithiasis. In: Urinary Calculus Disease. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1979; 145-198.
Raboy A, Ferzli GS, Ioffreda R, Alber PS. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. Urol. 1992;39(3):223-5.
Ather MH, Paryani J, Memon A, Sulaiman MN. A 10‐year experience of managing ureteric calculi: changing trends towards endourological intervention-is there a role for open surgery?. BJU Inter. 2001;88(3):173-7.
Amer T, Ahmed K, Bultitude M, Khan S, Kumar P, De Rosa A, et al. Standard versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review. Urol Inter. 2012;88(4):373-82.
Xiao-jian G, Lin LJ, Yan X. Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy. World J Urol. 2013;31:1605-10.
Bozkurt IH, Yonguc T, Arslan B, Degirmenci T, Gunlusoy B, Aydogdu O, et al. Minimally invasive surgical treatment for large impacted upper ureteral stones: Ureteroscopic lithotripsy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy?. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9:E122.
Sfoungaristos S, Mykoniatis I, Isid A, Gofrit ON, Rosenberg S, Hidas G, et al. Retrograde versus Antegrade Approach for the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones. BioMed Res Int. 2016;2016.
Skolarikos A, Papatsoris AG. Diagnosis and management of postpercutaneous nephrolithotomy residual stone fragments. J Endourol. 2009;23(10):1751-5.
Moufid K, Abbaka N, Touiti D, Adermouch L, Amine M, Lezrek M. Large impacted upper ureteral calculi: A comparative study between retrograde ureterolithotripsy and percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy in the modified lateral position. Urol Ann. 2013;5(3):140.
Sun X, Xia S, Lu J, Liu H, Han B, Li W. Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy. J Endourol. 2008;22(5):913-8.
Lojanapiwat B, Prasopsuk S. Upper-pole access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: comparison of supracostal and infracostal approaches. J Endourol. 2006;20(7):491-4.
Yadav R, Aron M, Gupta NP, Hemal AK, Seth A, Kolla SB. Safety of supracostal punctures for percutaneous renal surgery. Inter J Urol. 2006;13(10):1267-70.
Mousavi-Bahar SH, Mehrabi S, Moslemi MK. The safety and efficacy of PCNL with supracostal approach in the treatment of renal stones. Inter Urol Nephrol. 2011;43(4):983-7.
El-Karamany T. A supracostal approach for percutaneous nephrolithotomy of staghorn calculi: A prospective study and review of previous reports. Arab J Urol. 2012;10(4):358-66.
Wang Y, Jiang F, Wang Y, Hou Y, Zhang H, Chen Q, et al. Post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy septic shock and severe hemorrhage: a study of risk factors. Urol Inter. 2012;88(3):307-10.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
