Micropercutaneous laser nephrolithotripsy


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Introduction. The least invasive technique of PCNL is micropercutaneous nephrolithotripsy (micro-PCNL). A possibility of kidney puncture under direct endoscopic control with the creation of a working channel sized of 8-4.85 F is a characteristic feature of this system. Aim. To study the possibilities of micro-PCNL and to determine its role in the treatment of kidney stones. Materials and methods. A total of 74 patients aged 49.8+16.3 years were included in the study. In majority cases an isolated kidney stone was diagnosed (86.4%). The most common stone localization was pelvis (51.5%), followed by lower pole (35.9%). Considering the technical aspects of microPCNL, all patients were divided into 2 groups depending on the stone burden. In 46 patients (62.1%), the stone size was < 1.5 cm, while in 28 patients (37.9%) stones were bigger than 1.5 cm. Prestenting was performed in 54.0% due to renal colic or obstructive pyelonephritis. For the purpose of passive flushing of stone fragments during the lithotripsy, in most patients with a stone size > 1.5 cm, as well as in some prestented patients a ureteral access sheath with a diameter of 10/12 F (56.7%) was placed under x-ray control. In most patients with stones less than 1.5 cm, a 4.85 Ch sheath was utilized. In patients with larger stones, working sheath of 8 Ch was put. For stone disintegration, 50 W and 100 W holmium lasers, as well as the Russian innovative thulium fiber laser were used. Results. The average duration of surgery from the puncture was 30.6+11.6 minutes. The effectiveness was determined by use of a noncontrast computed tomography, performed one month after the surgery. An overall stone-free rate after one-session was 89.1%, and it was 93.4% and 82.4%, respectively, in patients with stones sized less and more than 1.5 cm. In 32.4% cases the stenting was placed due to the large number of small residual fragments and risk of obstruction. In one case, a conversion into a mini-PCNL was done. Two patients (2.7%) required stenting because of renal colic caused by the migration of stone fragments into the ureter. There was no bleeding. In 8.1% of cases, acute pyelonephritis was developed that was treated conservatively. In 9.4% of patients, ESWL was required due to residual stones diagnosed one month after the surgery. Conclusion. Micro-PCNL is highly effective and safe method for treatment of kidney stones. Placing of ureteral access sheath of size 10/12 F contributes to the passive flushing of fragments during lithotripsy, which, together with the use of the 8 F working sheath, makes it possible to effectively perform micro-PCNL in patients with kidney stones larger than 1.5 cm.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

A. G Martov

GBUZ “City clinical hospital named after D.D. Pletnev of the Health Department c. Moscow”; A.I. Burnazyan SRC FMBC, FMBA of Russia; M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University

Email: martovalex@mail.ru
MD, professor, Head of the urologic department №2; Head of the Department of Urology and Andrology; leading researcher at the Department of Urology and Andrology

S. V Dutov

GBUZ “City clinical hospital named after D.D. Pletnev of the Health Department c. Moscow”

Email: hammerwise@gmail.com
Ph.D., urologist at the urologic department №2

S. V Popov

Saint Petersburg St. Luke’s Clinical Hospital

MD, Chief and Head of the Center of Endourology and New Technologies

A. V Emelyanenko

Saint Petersburg St. Luke’s Clinical Hospital

urologist at the Department of Urology

A. S. Andronov

GBUZ “City clinical hospital named after D.D. Pletnev of the Health Department c. Moscow”; A.I. Burnazyan SRC FMBC, FMBA of Russia

I. N Orlov

Saint Petersburg St. Luke’s Clinical Hospital

M. M Adilhanov

GBUZ “City clinical hospital named after D.D. Pletnev of the Health Department c. Moscow”

S. I. Kozachihina

GBUZ “City clinical hospital named after D.D. Pletnev of the Health Department c. Moscow”; A.I. Burnazyan SRC FMBC, FMBA of Russia

References

  1. Fernstrom I., Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy, a new extraction technique. // Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976;10:257-259
  2. Turk C., Knoll T., Petrik A., Sarica K., Skolarikos A., Straub M., Seitz C. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis, 2015 edition, 71 p.
  3. Burr J., Ishii H., Simmonds N., Somani B. Is flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy the new gold standard for lower pole renal stones when compared to shock wave lithotripsy: Comparative outcomes from a University hospital over similar time period. Cent European J. Urol. 2015;68:183-186.
  4. El-Nahas A.R., El-Assmy A.M., Mansour O., Sheir K.Z. A prospective multivariate analysis of factors predicting stone disintegration by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: thevalue of high-resolution noncontrast computed tomography. Eur Urol. 2007;51:1688-1693; discussion 1693-4.
  5. Мартов А.Г., Пенюкова И.В., Москаленко С.А. идр. Дистанционная ударно-волновая литотрипсия камней нижней группы чашечек почки. Урология. 2013;3:10-18
  6. Jung G., Jung J., Ahn T. et al. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery versus a single-session percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole stones with a diameter of 15 to 30 mm: A propensity score-matching study. Korean J. Urol. 2015;56:525-532.
  7. Doizi S., Letendre J., Bonneau C., Gil Diez de Medina S., Traxer O. Comparative study of the treatment of renal stones with flexible ureterorenoscopy in normal weight, obese, and morbidly obese patients. Urology. 2015;85(1):38-44.
  8. Michel M.S., Trojan L., Rassweiler J.J. Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol. 2007;51(4):899-906.
  9. Helal M., Black T., Lockhart J., Figueroa T. TheHickmanpeel-awaysheath: alternativeforpediatricpercutaneousnephrolithotomy. J. Endourol. 1997;11:171-172.
  10. Jackman S.V., Domico S.G., Cadeddu J.A., Bishoff J.T., Kavoussi L.R., Jarrett T.V. Themini-perctechnique: alessinvasivealternativetopercutaneo us nephrolithotomy. World J. Urol. 1998;16:371-374.
  11. Nagele U., Schilling D., Anastasiadis A.G. et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy (MIP). Urologe A. 2008;47:1066:8-73.
  12. De S., Autorino R., Kim F., et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 2015;67:125-137.
  13. Bader M.J., Gratzke C., Seitz M., Sharma R., Stief C.G., Desai M. The “all-seeing needle”: initial results of an optical puncture system confirming access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol. 2011;59:1054-1059.
  14. Caione P., Dominicis M.D., Collura G., Matarazzo E., Nappo S.G., Capozza N. Microperc for pediatric nephrolithiasis: technique in Valdivia-modified position. European journal of pediatric surgery: official journal of Austrian Association of Pediatric Surgery. Zeitschriftffir Kinderchirurgie. 2015;25(1):94-99.
  15. Preminger G/M. Micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (micro-PNL) vs retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS): dealer’s choice? The devil is in the details. BJU Int. 2013;112(3):280-281.
  16. Ganpule A.P., Bhattu A.S., Desai M. PCNL in the twenty-first century: role of microperc, miniperc and ultraminiperc. World J. Urol. 2015;33(2): 235-240.
  17. Sabnis R.B., Ganesamoni R., Ganpule A.P., Mishra S., Vyas J., Jagtap J. et al. Current role of microperc in the management in the small renal calculi. Indian J. Urol. 2013;29:214-218.
  18. Armagan A., Tepeler A., Silay M.S. et al. Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of moderate-size renal calculi. J. Endourol. 2013;27: 177-181.
  19. Sabnis R.B., Chhabra J.S., Ganpule A.P., Abrol S., Desai M.R. Current role of PCNL in pediatric urolithiasis. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15(7):1-8.
  20. Penbegul N., Bodakcy M.N., Hatipoglu N.K., Sancaktutar A.A., Atar M., Cakmakci S. et al. Micro sheath for microperc: 14 gaugeangoicath. J. Endourol. 2013;27:835-839.
  21. Попов С.В., Орлов И.Н., Мартов А.Г., Асфандияров Ф.Р., Емельяненко А.В. Наш опыт применения микроперкутанной нефролитотрипсии в лечении крупных камней. Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2018;4:48-52
  22. Desai M.R., Sharma R., Mishra S. et al. Single-step percutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc): the initial clinical report. J. Urol. 2011;186:140-145.
  23. Karatag T., Tepeler A., Buldu I., Akcay M., Tosun M., Istanbulluoglu M.O., Armagan A. Is micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy surgery technically feasible and efficient under spinal anesthesia? Urolithiasis. 2015;1-6.
  24. Sabnis R.B., Ganesamoni R., Doshi A., Ganpule A.P., Jagtap J., Desai M.R. Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of small renal calculi: a randomized control trial. BJU Int. 2013;112:355-361.
  25. Kukreja R., Desai M., Patel S. et al. Factors effecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study. J. Endourol. 2004;18:715-722.
  26. Hatipoglu N.K., Tepeler A., Buldu I., Atis G., Bodakci M.N., Sancaktutar A.A., Silay M.S. et al. Initial experience of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal calculi in 140 renal units. Urolithiasis. 2014;42(2):159-164.
  27. Tepeler A., Armagan A., Sancaktutar A.A. et al. The role of microperc in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal calculi. J. Endourol. 2013;27: 13-18.
  28. Piskin Mesut, Selcuk Guven, Mehmet Kilinc, Mehmet Arslan, Emre Goger, Ahmet Ozturk. Preliminary, favorable experience with microperc in kidney and bladder stones. J. Endourol. 2012;26(11):1443-1447.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2019 Bionika Media

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies