2011
DOI: 10.1590/s1677-55382011000600009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

PCNL - a comparative study in nonoperated and in previously operated (open nephrolithotomy/pyelolithotomy) patients - a single-surgeon experience

Abstract: Open nephrolithotomy/pyelolithotomy ABSTRACTPurpose: Re-procedure in patients with history of open stone surgery is usually challenging due to the alteration in the retroperitoneal anatomy. The aim of this study was to determine the possible impact of open renal surgery on the efficacy and morbidity of subsequent percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
25
0
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
2
25
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…[1] The estimated lifetime risk of developing a kidney stone is approximately 12%. [1] Pakistan is located in the stone belt region with a very high incidence of renal stones.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…[1] The estimated lifetime risk of developing a kidney stone is approximately 12%. [1] Pakistan is located in the stone belt region with a very high incidence of renal stones.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[1] The estimated lifetime risk of developing a kidney stone is approximately 12%. [1] Pakistan is located in the stone belt region with a very high incidence of renal stones. [2] Renal stones were classically removed by open surgery, but the advent of minimally invasive, endoscopic techniques and extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) have almost replaced the classically performed open surgery for the removal of renal stones.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…ere was no statistically signi cant di erence in stone clearance between the groups. (Table-IV 4,5 Mean stone size among the respondents in Group I and Group II were 2.98 ± 0.65 and 3.03 ± 0.67 cm respectively. Study of Khan et al showed the mean stone size was 2.7cm with a range of 1.5 to 3.5cm.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 94%