Comparative Study of Percutaneous Tic Technique Vs Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.


Journal

Urology
ISSN: 1527-9995
Titre abrégé: Urology
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0366151

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 2020
Historique:
received: 06 08 2019
revised: 04 12 2019
accepted: 11 12 2019
pubmed: 23 2 2020
medline: 21 1 2022
entrez: 22 2 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To compare the PERC-tic technique, described as placement of dual wires under fluoroscopic guidance adjacent to the stone within the obstructed calyx, to standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with working wires secured down the ureter. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent a PCNL procedure between October 2016 and November 2018. Patients undergoing the PERC-tic technique were compared to patients undergoing standard PCNL. Regression models evaluated if PERC-tic PCNL was associated with equivalent stone-free rates to standard PCNL at 90 days, need for secondary procedures, and 90-day hospital readmission. This study involved 126 PCNL cases of which 63 were done using the PERC-tic technique and 63 with standard PCNL. In multivariate analysis, there was no statistical difference in 90-day stone-free rate between standard PCNL and PERC-tic cohorts (P = .08). We did note a 6 times higher likelihood of needing secondary procedures for residual stones in the PERC-tic vs standard PCNL groups (71% vs 30% P <.0001). There was no statistical significance in 90-day hospital readmission rates between groups (P = .47). Our findings suggest similar stone-free rate at 90 days and higher rates of secondary procedures after PERC-tic PCNL compared to the standard approach; however, there was no difference in complications. These findings may reflect decreased visualization with the PERC-tic technique or simply be reflective of the case difficulty requiring the use of the PERC-tic technique. These findings can be used for patient counseling when considering this technique for complex stone disease.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32081670
pii: S0090-4295(20)30174-6
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.12.040
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

27-33

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Naveen Krishnan (N)

Indiana University, Department of Urology, Indianapolis, IN.

Tim Large (T)

Indiana University, Department of Urology, Indianapolis, IN.

Crystal Valadon (C)

Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY.

Amy Krambeck (A)

Indiana University, Department of Urology, Indianapolis, IN. Electronic address: akrambeck@iuhealth.org.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH