Abstract
Introduction
Percutaneous stone removal increasingly plays an important role among the different approaches of interventional stone therapy, particularly since the development of miniaturized instruments is resulting in lower morbidity for the patients. One major drawback of smaller instruments is the increased difficulty of stone retrieval after disintegration due to the reduced tract diameter. This results in longer operation time and the need of additional tools such as disposable retrieval baskets. One of the key factors in the development of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy (MIP) was the design of an Amplatz sheath which provides a built-in vacuum cleaner effect for stone retrieval.
Methods
A series of flow analyses with the gauges and shapes of the most commonly used nephroscopes and sheaths in percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy was performed by computational fluid dynamics. Flow velocity and direction in front of the nephroscope were computed and visualized by the software.
Results
In our study, the vacuum cleaner effect developed exclusively when a round-shaped nephroscope was used (Nagele Miniature Nephroscope System, Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG) and depended on the relation between nephroscope diameter and inner sheath diameter. The strongest effect was observed with a 12 F nephroscope and an inner sheath diameter of 15 F. It did not develop when an oval- or crescent-shaped nephroscope was used. In front of the distal end of the round-shaped nephroscope, a slipstream develops, induced by the excursive change of width of the fluid flow on the outlet of the flushing canal. This allows the adhesion of a stone fragment in the eddy while the fluid flow is circulating around the stone.
Conclusion
This study illustrates and explains the vacuum cleaner effect which has been detected in the development of the Nagele Miniature Nephroscope System used in MIP. It combines the reduced morbidity of smaller kidney puncture diameters with the benefit of quick and complete stone removal.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alken P, Hutschenreiter G, Gunther R, Marberger M (1981) Percutaneous stone manipulation. J Urol 125(4):463–466
Segura JW, Patterson DE, LeRoy AJ, McGough PF, Barrett DM (1982) Percutaneous removal of kidney stones. Preliminary report. Mayo Clin Proc 57(10):615–619
Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51(4):899–906. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.020 Discussion 906
Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J, Gerspach J, Kurtz S, Stout L (1997) Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 157(5):1578–1582
Jackman SV, Docimo SG, Cadeddu JA, Bishoff JT, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW (1998) The “mini-perc” technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 16(6):371–374
Chan DY, Jarrett TW (2000) Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 14(3):269–272 Discussion 272–263
Lahme S, Bichler KH, Strohmaier WL, Gotz T (2001) Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stones. Eur Urol 40(6):619–624
Sung YM, Choo SW, Jeon SS, Shin SW, Park KB, Do YS (2006) The “mini-perc” technique of percutaneous nephrolithotomy with a 14-Fr peel-away sheath: 3-year results in 72 patients. Korean J Radiol 7(1):50–56
Feng MI, Tamaddon K, Mikhail A, Kaptein JS, Bellman GC (2001) Prospective randomized study of various techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 58(3):345–350
Mishra S, Sharma R, Garg C, Kurien A, Sabnis R, Desai M (2011) Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1–2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int 108(6):896–899. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09936.x Discussion 899–900
Nagele U, Horstmann M, Sievert KD, Kuczyk MA, Walcher U, Hennenlotter J, Stenzl A, Anastasiadis AG (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(9):1113–1116. doi:10.1089/end.2006.0230
Nagele U, Anastasiadis AG, Schilling DA, Sievert KD, Kuczyk MA, Stenzl A (2007) Introducing a new sealant applicator for easy, safe, and quick closure of a mini-percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy access tract. J Endourol 21(4):393–396. doi:10.1089/end.2006.0244
Nagele U, Schilling D, Anastasiadis AG, Corvin S, Seibold J, Kuczyk M, Stenzl A, Sievert KD (2006) Closing the tract of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy with gelatine matrix hemostatic sealant can replace nephrostomy tube placement. Urology 68(3):489–493. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2006.03.081 Discussion 493–484
Nagele U, Schilling D, Anastasiadis AG, Walcher U, Sievert KD, Merseburger AS, Kuczyk M, Stenzl A (2008) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy (MIP). Urol A 47(9):1066, 1068–1073. doi:10.1007/s00120-008-1814-2
Gay RR (2006) Power plant performance monitoring. Tech Books International, New Delhi
Antonelli JA, Pearle MS (2013) Advances in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Clin N Am 40(1):99–113. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2012.09.012
Cheng F, Yu W, Zhang X, Yang S, Xia Y, Ruan Y (2010) Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones. J Endourol 24(10):1579–1582. doi:10.1089/end.2009.0581
Amer T, Ahmed K, Bultitude M, Khan S, Kumar P, De Rosa A, Khan MS, Hegarty N (2012) Standard versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review. Urol Int 88(4):373–382. doi:10.1159/000336145
Dehong C, Liangren L, Huawei L, Qiang W (2013) A comparison among four tract dilation methods of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 41(6):523–530. doi:10.1007/s00240-013-0598-z
Troxel SA, Low RK (2002) Renal intrapelvic pressure during percutaneous nephrolithotomy and its correlation with the development of postoperative fever. J Urol 168(4 Pt 1):1348–1351. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000030996.64339.f1
Zhong W, Zeng G, Wu K, Li X, Chen W, Yang H (2008) Does a smaller tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy contribute to high renal pelvic pressure and postoperative fever? J Endourol 22(9):2147–2151. doi:10.1089/end.2008.0001
Hoffman N, Lukasewycz SJ, Canales B, Botnaru A, Slaton JW, Monga M (2004) Percutaneous renal stone extraction: in vitro study of retrieval devices. J Urol 172(2):559–561. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000129195.71871.17
Monga M, Hendlin K, Lee C, Anderson JK (2004) Systematic evaluation of stone basket dimensions. Urology 63(6):1042–1044. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2003.12.030
Chenven ES, Bagley DH (2005) Retrieval and releasing capabilities of stone-basket designs in vitro. J Endourol 19(2):204–209. doi:10.1089/end.2005.19.204
Anjum MI, Palmer JH (1996) Stone matrix clearance from the pelvicalyceal system using a bottle-brush. Br J Urol 78(3):460–463
Lezrek M, Qarro A, Bazine K, Najoui M, Asseban M, Benjelloun M, el Kasmaoui H, Beddouch A, Alami M (2010) A vacuum cleaner for the pelvicalyceal system during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 24(6):949–952. doi:10.1089/end.2009.0444
Conflict of interest
A. P. Nicklas, D. Schilling, M. J. Bader: None. T. R. W. Herrmann: Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG, consultancy. U. Nagele: Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG—royalties.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nicklas, A.P., Schilling, D., Bader, M.J. et al. The vacuum cleaner effect in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. World J Urol 33, 1847–1853 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1541-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1541-4