World journal of urology · 2024
What should the optimal access site be for percutaneous treatment of anterior lower pole calyx stones?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kucukyangoz Mustafa, Gucuk Adnan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Compared to other stone groups, anterior calyx stones are more challenging for endourologists to treat. This study aims to evaluate the differences between our latest technique and conventional techniques for treating anterior calyx stones in the lower pole.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with isolated anterior lower pole calyx or complex lower pole stones with anterior calyx branching were included in the study. The first group included lower pole access, while the second group included percutaneous treatment through the middle or upper pole. In the first group, the posterior calyx or direct anterior calyx approach was utilised depending on whether the stone was isolated calyx, complex structure or calyx anatomy, while in the second group, percutaneous nephrolithotomy was performed through the middle or upper pole posterior calyx access.
RESULTS: There were 37 patients in Group 1 and 25 patients in Group 2. Both groups were similar regarding patient age, sex, stone burden, and stone localisation (p > 0.05). When comparing operative and post-operative data between groups, it was found that the stone clearance rate, number of accesses, and haematocrit decrease were statistically superior in the second group (p: 0.003, p: 0.002, p: 0.018), with no significant difference in mean operative time, length of hospital stay, fluoroscopy time and pain score (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous surgery utilising an access from a calyx distal to the stone may offer better clearance and lower morbidity rates for lower pole stones involving the anterior calyx.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with isolated anterior lower pole calyx or complex lower pole stones with anterior calyx branching were included in the study. The first group included lower pole access, while the second group included percutaneous treatment through the middle or upper pole. In the first group, the posterior calyx or direct anterior calyx approach was utilised depending on whether the stone was isolated calyx, complex structure or calyx anatomy, while in the second group, percutaneous nephrolithotomy was performed through the middle or upper pole posterior calyx access.
RESULTS: There were 37 patients in Group 1 and 25 patients in Group 2. Both groups were similar regarding patient age, sex, stone burden, and stone localisation (p > 0.05). When comparing operative and post-operative data between groups, it was found that the stone clearance rate, number of accesses, and haematocrit decrease were statistically superior in the second group (p: 0.003, p: 0.002, p: 0.018), with no significant difference in mean operative time, length of hospital stay, fluoroscopy time and pain score (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous surgery utilising an access from a calyx distal to the stone may offer better clearance and lower morbidity rates for lower pole stones involving the anterior calyx.