Renal Parenchymal Damage After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with One-Stage Tract Dilation Technique: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Aminsharifi, Alireza; Alavi, Mehrosadat; Sadeghi, Ghasem; Shakeri, Saeed; Afsar, Firoozeh

doi:10.1089/end.2010.0638

Cited by 45 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Aminsharifi, et al 13 condujeron un estudio que reveló el daño causado al parénquima renal comparando la dilatación en un paso contra la dilatación secuencial a través de la captación de tecnecio 99 en una gammagrafía con ácido dimercaptosuccínico (DMSA), encontrando que 14 de 29 pacientes con la técnica en un paso presentaron una nueva cicatriz en el parénquima, en comparación con 2 de 29 pacientes del grupo de dilatación secuencial. En nuestro estudio se pretendió medir de manera indirecta la función renal con los valores séricos de creatinina; sin embargo, tanto la captación de tecnecio 99 en la gammagrafía con DMSA como los valores séricos de creatinina no son la modalidad diagnóstica de elección para determinar la función renal.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Cuando se identifica alguno de estos factores de riesgo se recomienda realizar el trayecto de nefrostomía con la técnica convencional 11 . Con el fin de reducir estas complicaciones, la fuerza radial aplicada es crucial, utilizando movimientos rotacionales durante el proceso gradual para reducir así el desplazamiento de la unidad renal y la tasa de falla a un 7% en pacientes con cirugía previa 8,13,14 . Dentro de las limitaciones al realizar este estudio encontramos las dificultades para la evaluación de la función renal de manera directa.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Abordaje para nefrolitotomía percutánea. Comparación del procedimiento en un solo paso contra la secuencial con dilatadores metálicos

Sedano‐Portillo

Ochoa-León

Irusteta-Jiménez

et al. 2017

GMM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionunclassified

Abordaje para nefrolitotomía percutánea. Comparación del procedimiento en un solo paso contra la secuencial con dilatadores metálicos

Sedano‐Portillo

Ochoa-León

Irusteta-Jiménez

et al. 2017

GMM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, it was demonstrated that although the one stage tract dilation technique reduced radiation exposure and access time in the short term, it may cause more parenchymal damage than the gradual dilation technique. 13 They described a dilator composed of an 8F polyurethane tube cemented to a gradually tapering polyurethane dilator of the desired size (10F to 34F) that was passed over a guidewire into the pyelocaliceal system, with the 8F portion entering the proximal part of the ureter. 11 Whilst other described a single dilation with a 25 F or 30 F Amplatz dilator advanced over an Alken guide or an 8 F dilator.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized study comparing safety and efficacy of one shot versus serial metal telescopic dilation technique in percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Acharya

Shrestha

et al. 2017

J. Soc. Surg. Nepal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Dilation of the track can be achieved by multiple incremental flexible Amplatz type, Alken metal telescoping dilators, or balloon in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Balloon dilator is the most expensive method. Both of the incremental dilation techniques are more time consuming with higher failure rates. Hence, a prospective randomized study was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of “single shot” dilation of the nephrostomy tract by amplatz dilator with serial alken metallic telescopic dilation technique in PCNL. Methods: Of the 138 renal stone patients who underwent PCNL from January 2015 to December 2015, 100 patients were randomized into two groups. Serial tract dilation with alken metallic dilators was used in group A (n=50), and one shot dilation technique in Group B (n=50). The access tract dilation time, success rate, blood loss and complications were evaluated. Results: Both the groups were comparable in terms of mean age, location and size (largest diameter) of the stone (p>0.05). No difference was observed in the procedural success rate between groups A and B (96% v 94% respectively, p=0.64). Mean access time was similar in both groups (5.89+2.67 vs 4.98+2.0 mins, p=0.06). Complications between the groups were not significantly different. There were 6 patients with previous open stone surgery in both the groups. Previous open stone surgery did not impact procedural success rate, access time and complications in both groups. Conclusion: One-shot dilation technique is equally as effective, safe and well tolerated as metal telescopic dilation techniques even in patients with history of ipsilateral open stone surgery.

show abstract

“…Thus, different treatment modalities might be considered for large upper- and mid-ureteral stones. PNL was recommended for large upper-ureter stones in the guideline [2;] however, scar formation or progression rates have been reported as 11 to 48.3% [8]. For this reason, PNL for pure proximal ureteral stones more than 15 mm is not preferred in our institution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy with Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for Large Proximal and Mid-Ureter Stones

Kaygısız¹,

Çoşkun²,

Kılıçarslan³

et al. 2015

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and complications of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy with laparoscopic ureter laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in mid- or proximal portion of large ureteral stones. Material and Methods: We reviewed patients with large (>15 mm) ureteral stone and those who underwent ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (URS group) or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU group). The first attempt was considered successful in patients who had residual fragments smaller than 2 mm and no conversion of the primary procedure to another. Results: Sixty patients (URS group 29, LU group 31) met inclusion criteria. FURS was used as an adjunctive procedure in one patient for URS group and in two patients for LU group in the same season. LU had a higher success rate and the first-day stone-free rate when compared with URS. Number of procedures was also significantly higher in URS group. There was no difference in stone-free rates at the first and third months, and length of hospitalization and operation were higher in the LU group. Only two patients in the LU group and one patient in the URS group had major complications. Conclusions: Laparoscopy is an effective option of large proximal and mid-ureter stone treatment; however, URS provides similar stone-free rates at three months as a minimal invasive procedure.

show abstract

Renal Parenchymal Damage After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with One-Stage Tract Dilation Technique: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract: Although the one-stage tract dilation technique reduced radiation exposure and access time, in the short term, it may cause more parenchymal damage than the gradual dilation technique.

Cited by 45 publications

References 19 publications

Abordaje para nefrolitotomía percutánea. Comparación del procedimiento en un solo paso contra la secuencial con dilatadores metálicos

Abordaje para nefrolitotomía percutánea. Comparación del procedimiento en un solo paso contra la secuencial con dilatadores metálicos

Randomized study comparing safety and efficacy of one shot versus serial metal telescopic dilation technique in percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Comparison of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy with Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for Large Proximal and Mid-Ureter Stones

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About