European urology · 2008
Modified supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones treatable with a single percutaneous access: a prospective randomized trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
De Sio Marco, Autorino Riccardo, Quarto Giuseppe, Calabrò Francesco, Damiano Rocco, Giugliano Francesco, Mordente Salvatore, D'Armiento Massimo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare operative time, safety, and effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine versus prone position in a prospective randomized trial.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: From October 2005 to June 2007, 75 patients (33 men, 42 women; mean age, 39.3 yr) were prospectively enrolled and randomly divided into group A (39 patients, supine position) and group B (36 patients, prone position). Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of single or multiple renal stones (pelvic-caliceal) treatable with a single percutaneous access, stone diameter >2.5cm, body mass index (BMI) <30kg/m(2), and no contraindications to perform the operation in the prone position. Exclusion criteria were stones in more than one calyx, complete staghorn stones, and coexisting renal anomalies.
RESULTS: The two groups were comparable in age, BMI, male-to-female ratio, and stone size. No significant difference was ascertained between the two groups in terms of stone-free rate (group A, 88.7% vs. group B, 91.6%, p=0.12), mean blood loss (group A, Delta hemoglobin -2.3g/dl vs. group B, -2.2g/dl, p=0.23), and mean hospital stay (group A, 4.3 d vs. group B, 4.1 d, p=0.18). The only significant difference reported was mean operative time (group A, 43min vs. group B, 68min, p<0.001). No blood transfusions were needed and no organ injuries were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: In this carefully selected patient population with uncomplicated renal stones, the supine position was similar to the prone position for percutaneous stone removal.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: From October 2005 to June 2007, 75 patients (33 men, 42 women; mean age, 39.3 yr) were prospectively enrolled and randomly divided into group A (39 patients, supine position) and group B (36 patients, prone position). Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of single or multiple renal stones (pelvic-caliceal) treatable with a single percutaneous access, stone diameter >2.5cm, body mass index (BMI) <30kg/m(2), and no contraindications to perform the operation in the prone position. Exclusion criteria were stones in more than one calyx, complete staghorn stones, and coexisting renal anomalies.
RESULTS: The two groups were comparable in age, BMI, male-to-female ratio, and stone size. No significant difference was ascertained between the two groups in terms of stone-free rate (group A, 88.7% vs. group B, 91.6%, p=0.12), mean blood loss (group A, Delta hemoglobin -2.3g/dl vs. group B, -2.2g/dl, p=0.23), and mean hospital stay (group A, 4.3 d vs. group B, 4.1 d, p=0.18). The only significant difference reported was mean operative time (group A, 43min vs. group B, 68min, p<0.001). No blood transfusions were needed and no organ injuries were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: In this carefully selected patient population with uncomplicated renal stones, the supine position was similar to the prone position for percutaneous stone removal.