Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of intrarenal pelvic pressure during micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) is a recently introduced percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) technique that is performed through a 4.8Fr all-seeing needle. We aimed to measure the intrarenal pelvic pressure (IPP) during microperc and compare it with the levels of conventional PNL. A total of 20 patients with 1- to 3-cm renal calculi resistant to shock wave lithotripsy were treated either with microperc (Group-1, n: 10) or conventional PNL (Group-2, n: 10) by the same surgical team. The IPP was measured during different stages (entrance into the collecting system, stone fragmentation, and before termination) of the procedures by an urodynamic machine using the 6Fr ureteral catheter. All the variables were statistically compared between the two groups. The demographic values of the patients were similar. The operation time and duration of hospitalization were significantly prolonged in conventional PNL group (p = 0.034, p = 0.01, respectively). The mean drop in hematocrit levels was significantly lower in microperc group (3.5 ± 1.5 vs. 1.8 ± 0.8; p = 0.004). The IPP was significantly higher in microperc group during all steps of the procedure. The highest level of the IPP was measured as 30.3 ± 3.9 and 20.1 ± 3.1 mmHg in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively (p < 0.0001). However, the complication and success rates were found comparable. In conclusion, we demonstrate that the level of IPP is significantly increased during microperc compared to conventional PNL. Microperc should be used cautiously in cases with impaired drainage of the collecting system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mulvaney WP (1963) The hydrodynamics of renal irrigations: with reference to calculus solvents. J Urol 89:765–768

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stenberg A, Bohman SO, Morsing P et al (1988) Back-leak of pelvic urine to the bloodstream. Acta Physiol Scand 134:223–234

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Seitz M et al (2011) The “all-seeing needle”: initial results of an optical puncture system confirming access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 59:1054–1059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Desai MR, Sharma R, Mishra S et al (2011) Single-step percutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc): the initial clinical report. J Urol 186:140–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tepeler A, Armagan A, Sancaktutar AA et al (2013) The role of microperc in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal calculi. J Endourol 27:13–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Armagan A, Tepeler A, Silay MS et al (2013) Micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of moderate-size renal calculi. J Endourol 27(2):177–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Guohua Z, Wen Z, Xun L, Wenzhong C et al (2007) The influence of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy on renal pelvic pressure in vivo. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17(4):307–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Troxel SA, Low RK (2002) Renal intrapelvic pressure during percutaneous nephrolithotomy and its correlation with the development of postoperative fever. J Urol 168:1348–1351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tepeler A, Armağan A, Akman T et al (2012) Impact of percutaneous renal access technique on outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 26:828–833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K et al (2008) Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified Clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 53:184–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rehman J, Monga M, Landman J et al (2003) Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths. Urology 61:713–718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Monga M, Bodie J, Ercole B (2004) Is there a role for small-diameter ureteral access sheaths? Impact on irrigant flow and intrapelvic pressures. Urology 64:439–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nagele U, Horstmann M, Sievert KD et al (2007) A newly designed amplatz sheath decreases intrapelvic irrigation pressure during mini-percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy: an in vitro pressure-measurement and microscopic study. J Endourol 21:1113–1116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Michel MS, Honeck P, Alken P (2008) Conventional high pressure versus newly developed continuous-flow ureterorenoscope: urodynamic pressure evaluation of the renal pelvis and flow capacity. J Endourol 22:1083–1085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Low RK (1999) Nephroscopy sheath characteristics and intrarenal pelvic pressure: human kidney model. J Endourol 13:205–208

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hinman F, Redewill FH (1926) Pyelovenous back flow. JAMA 87:1287–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Penbegul N, Bodakci MN, Hatipoglu NK et al (2013) Microsheath for microperc: 14-gauge angiocath. J Endourol 27:835–839

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Abdulkadir Tepeler, Tolga Akman, Mesrur Selcuk Silay, Muzaffer Akcay, Cevper Ersoz, Senad Kalkan & Abdullah Armagan

  2. Department of Urology, Kartal Lutfi Kirdar Teaching and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Kemal Sarica

Authors
  1. Abdulkadir Tepeler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tolga Akman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mesrur Selcuk Silay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Muzaffer Akcay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cevper Ersoz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Senad Kalkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Abdullah Armagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kemal Sarica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdulkadir Tepeler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tepeler, A., Akman, T., Silay, M.S. et al. Comparison of intrarenal pelvic pressure during micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urolithiasis 42, 275–279 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-014-0646-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-014-0646-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation