Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Middle calyx access is better for single renal pelvic stone in ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Urolithiasis volume 44, pages 459–463 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

To compare the outcomes among upper calyx, middle calyx, and lower calyx access in complete ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for single renal pelvic stone. Between July 2014 and September 2015, the data of 153 patients with single renal pelvic calculi were retrospectively reviewed in this study and patients were divided to group 1 (45 patients, upper calyx access), group 2 (57 patients, middle calyx access), and group 3 (51 patients, lower calyx access). Preoperative characteristics and intraoperative and postoperative parameters were analyzed and compared. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Important patient- and stone-related parameters were similar among the three groups. The mean operative time was significantly shorter in the middle calyx group than the lower and upper calyx groups (41.2 ± 6.9 vs. 50.2 ± 9.3 and 46.0 ± 9.6 min, respectively). The middle calyx group had a higher stone-free rate than the lower and upper calyx groups (98.20 vs. 84.3 % and 93.3 %, respectively, p = 0.037). There were no significant differences in mean postoperative hemoglobin decrease and incidence of complications among groups (p = 0.42 and 0.862, respectively). Middle calyx access achieved superior outcomes for removal of single renal pelvic stone via ultrasound-guided PCNL.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

References

  1. De Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M et al (2011) The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 25:11–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brannen GE, Bush WH, Correa RJ et al (1985) Kidney stone removal: percutaneous versus surgical lithotomy. J Urol 133:6–12

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Segura JW (1989) The role of percutaneous surgery in renal and ureteral stone removal. J Urol 141(3Pt2):780–781

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Soucy F, Ko R, Duvdevani M et al (2009) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn calculi: a single center’s experience over 15 years. J Endourol 23:1669–1673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Li X, He Zh, Wu K et al (2009) Chinese minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the Guangzhou experience. J Endourol 23:1693–1697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Osman M, Wendt-Nordahl G, Heger K et al (2005) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy with ultrasonography-guided renal access: experience from over 300 cases. BJU Int 96:875–878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Aron M, Goel R, Krsarwani PK et al (2004) Upper pole access for complex lower pole renal calculi. BJU Int 94:849–852

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Radecka E, Brehmer M, Holmgren K et al (2003) Complications associated with percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: supra-versus subcostal access: a retrospective study. Acta Radiol 44:447–451

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Falahatkar S, Kazemnezhad E, Moghaddam KG et al (2013) Middle calyx access in complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Can Urol Assoc J 7(5-6):e306–e310

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lightfoot M, Ng C, Engebretsen S et al (2014) Analgesic use and complications following upper pole access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 28:909–914

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Netto NR Jr, Ikonomidis J, Ikari O et al (2005) Comparative study of percutaneous access for staghorn calculi. Urology 65:659–662

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Munver R, Delvecchio FC, Newman GE et al (2001) Critical analysis of supracostal access for percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 166:1242–1246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nishizawa K, Yamada H, Miyazaki Y et al (2008) Results of treatment of renal calculi with lower-pole fluoroscopically guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Int J Urol 15:399–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. Sanguedolce F, Breda A, Millan F et al (2013) Lower pole stones: prone PCNL versus supine PCNL in the International Cooperation in Endourology (ICE) group experience. World J Urol 31(6):1575–1580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Li X, Zeng GH, Liu JH et al (2005) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of complex urinary calculi: a middle calyx puncture approach. J Chin Urol 20:147–149

    Google Scholar 

  17. Young AT, Hunter DW, Castaneda-Zuniga WR et al (1985) Percutaneous extraction of urinary calculi: use of the intercostal approach. Radiology 154:633–638

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yan S, Xiang F, Yongsheng S (2013) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy guided solely by ultrasonography: a 5-year study of >700 cases. BJU Int 112(7):965–971

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fei X, Li J, Song Y, Wu B (2014) Single-stage multiple-tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of staghorn stones under total ultrasonography guidance. Urol Int 93(4):411–416

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Marberger M (1994) Percutaneous renal surgery: its role in stone management. In: Krane RJ, Sirolky MB, Fitzpatrick JM (eds) Clinical urology. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 254–256

    Google Scholar 

  21. Qi S, Li L, Liu R et al (2014) Impact of stone branch number on outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of staghorn calculi. J Endourol 28:152–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Boon JM, Shinners B, Meiring JH (2001) Variations of the position of the colon as applied to percutaneous nephrostomy. Surg Radiol Anat 23(6):421–425

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Xu K, Huang J, Guo Z et al (2011) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in semisupine position: a modified approach for renal calculus. Urol Res 39:467–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Division, Sheng Jing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, 110004, People’s Republic of China

    Yan Song, Wei Jin & Xiang Fei

  2. Tianjin Key Laboratory of Chinese Medical Pharmacology, Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, 300193, China

    Shengyu Hua

Authors
  1. Yan Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shengyu Hua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiang Fei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiang Fei.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (MOV 43392 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Song, Y., Jin, W., Hua, S. et al. Middle calyx access is better for single renal pelvic stone in ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urolithiasis 44, 459–463 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0866-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0866-9

Keywords

search

Navigation