Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 1587–1592 | Cite as

Construction of a three-dimensional model of renal stones: comprehensive planning for percutaneous nephrolithotomy and assistance in surgery

  • Hulin Li
  • Yuanbo Chen
  • Chunxiao LiuEmail author
  • Bingkun Li
  • Kai Xu
  • Susu Bao
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

To construct a three-dimensional (3D) model of renal stones to facilitate comprehensive planning for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and to assist in surgery.

Methods

Fifteen patients with complex renal stones, including one patient with a horseshoe kidney, eight patients with partial/complete staghorn, and six patients with multiple renal stones, participated in our study. Computed tomography images of the unenhanced, arterial, venous, and excretory phases were obtained before surgery. Image segmentation and 3D reconstruction of the renal stones were performed using Mimics 12.1 software. A virtual safe and reliable percutaneous renal access route were established for each patient by comprehensive planning based on the 3D model of renal stones. PCNL was subsequently performed with the assistance of the 3D model. Patient demographics, surgical details, and postoperative treatment parameters were recorded.

Results

The 3D models of renal stones accurately represented the interrelationships between the intrarenal arteries and veins, collecting system, stones, and adjacent anatomical structures. PCNL was completed successfully in all 15 patients. The mean operating time was 75.6 ± 13.4 min. The change in hemoglobin concentration was 1.2 ± 0.3 g/l. The one-stage stone-free rate was 93.3 %, and the final stone-free rate was 100 %. No major postoperative complications were noted, except for postoperative pain in one case.

Conclusion

Construction of a 3D model of renal stones with the aim of minimizing the risks of percutaneous procedures and achieving higher one-stage stone-free rates is feasible for comprehensive PCNL planning and assistance in patients with complex renal stones.

Keywords

Complex renal stone Three-dimensional model Percutaneous nephrolithotomy Comprehensive planning Minimally invasive 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a Guangdong Science and Technology Plan project (2009B030801215).

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of financial interest to declare.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MPG 109504 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MPG 12390 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Kohlany KM, Shokeir AA, Mosbah A, Mohsen T, Shoma AM, Eraky I, El-Kenawy M, El-Kappany HA (2005) Treatment of complete staghorn stones: a prospective randomized comparison of open surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 173(2):469–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Watterson JD, Soon S, Jana K (2006) Access related complications during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: urology versus radiology at a single academic institution. J Urol 176(1):142–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Desai M (2012) Staghorn morphometry: a new tool for clinical classification and prediction model for percutaneous nephrolithotomy monotherapy. J Endourol 26(1):6–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Turna B, Nazli O, Demiryoguran S, Mammadov R, Cal C (2007) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: variables that influence hemorrhage. Urology 69(4):603–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Muslumanoglu AY, Tefekli A, Karadag MA, Tok A, Sari E, Berberoglu Y (2006) Impact of percutaneous access point number and location on complication and success rates in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int 77(4):340–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M, Gutierrez J, Lingeman J, Scarpa R, Tefekli A (2011) The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 25(1):11–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    El-Assmy AM, Shokeir AA, El-Nahas AR, Shoma AM, Eraky I, El-Kenawy MR, El-Kappany HA (2007) Outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: effect of body mass index. Eur Urol 52(1):199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tanriverdi O, Boylu U, Kendirci M, Kadihasanoglu M, Horasanli K, Miroglu C (2007) The learning curve in the training of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 52(1):206–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jang WS, Choi KH, Yang SC, Han WK (2011) The learning curve for flank percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney calculi: a single surgeon’s experience. Korean J Urol 52(4):284–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thiruchelvam N, Mostafid H, Ubhayakar G (2005) Planning percutaneous nephrolithotomy using multidetector computed tomography urography, multiplanar reconstruction and three-dimensional reformatting. BJU Int 95(9):1280–1284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghani KR, Rintoul M, Patel U, Anson K (2005) Three-dimensional planning of percutaneous renal stone surgery in a horseshoe kidney using 16-slice CT and volume-rendered movies. J Endourol 19(4):461–463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soria F, Delgado MI, Sanchez FM, Allona A, Jimenez Cruz JF, Morell E, Uson J (2009) Effectiveness of three-dimensional fluoroscopy in percutaneous nephrostomy: an animal model study. Urology 73(3):649–652 discussion 652-644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dalela D, Gupta A, Ahmed S, Goel A (2009) Three-dimensional synchronized multidirectional renal pyelo-angiography: a new imaging concept to facilitate percutaneous nephrolithotomy in technically challenging cases. J Endourol 23(12):1937–1939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ukimura O (2010) Image-guided surgery in minimally invasive urology. Curr Opin Urol 20(2):136–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Teber D, Guven S, Simpfendorfer T, Baumhauer M, Guven EO, Yencilek F, Gozen AS, Rassweiler J (2009) Augmented reality: a new tool to improve surgical accuracy during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy? Preliminary in vitro and in vivo results. Eur Urol 56(2):332–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simpfendorfer T, Baumhauer M, Muller M, Gutt CN, Meinzer HP, Rassweiler JJ, Guven S, Teber D (2011) Augmented reality visualization during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 25(12):1841–1845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ritter M, Rassweiler MC, Hacker A, Michel MS (2012) Laser-guided percutaneous kidney access with the Uro Dyna-CT: first experience of three-dimensional puncture planning with an ex vivo model. World J Urol [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rassweiler JJ, Muller M, Fangerau M, Klein J, Goezen AS, Pereira P, Meinzer HP, Teber D (2012) iPad-assisted percutaneous access to the kidney using marker-based navigation: initial clinical experience. Eur Urol 61(3):628–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mei J, Yin Z, Zhang J, Lui KW, Hu S, Peng Z, Chen S, Tang M (2010) A mini pig model for visualization of perforator flap by using angiography and MIMICS. Surg Radiol Anat 32(5):477–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ukimura O, Nakamoto M, Gill IS (2012) Three-dimensional reconstruction of renovascular-tumor anatomy to facilitate zero-ischemia partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 61(1):211–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rastinehad AR, Andonian S, Smith AD, Siegel DN (2009) Management of hemorrhagic complications associated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 23(10):1763–1767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Richstone L, Reggio E, Ost MC, Seideman C, Fossett LK, Okeke Z, Rastinehad AR, Lobko I, Siegel DN, Smith AD (2008) First Prize (tie): hemorrhage following percutaneous renal surgery: characterization of angiographic findings. J Endourol 22(6):1129–1135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Munver R, Delvecchio FC, Newman GE, Preminger GM (2001) Critical analysis of supracostal access for percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 166(4):1242–1246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walsh RM, Kelly CR, Gupta M (2009) Percutaneous renal surgery: use of flexible nephroscopy and treatment of infundibular stenoses. J Endourol 23(10):1679–1685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Williams SK, Leveillee RJ (2008) A single percutaneous access and flexible nephroscopy is the best treatment for a full staghorn calculus. J Endourol 22(9):1835–1837 discussion 1839PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hulin Li
    • 1
  • Yuanbo Chen
    • 1
  • Chunxiao Liu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bingkun Li
    • 1
  • Kai Xu
    • 1
  • Susu Bao
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of UrologyZhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical UniversityGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.The Computer SchoolSouth China Normal UniversityGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations