Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Which way is best for stone fragments and dust extraction during percutaneous nephrolithotomy

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

Abstract

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a commonly used type of minimally invasive treatment in kidney stone surgeries. Surgical success is assessed according to residual stone amount after surgery. The purpose of this study is to compare the two methods’ success and practicality that are applied after the fracture of the stone in the patients who applied PCNL and which enable the removal of the residual stones. Among 102 patients who underwent a single-session of PCNL at our department between June 2015 and November 2016 were evaluated. Previously identified irrigation method and our aspiration method which described used in post-operative patients divided into two groups of residual fragments was assessed by computed tomography. The results were evaluated in statistical analyses. Significant p was accepted as p < 0.05. The age and gender distribution of patients in the irrigation and aspiration groups did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). In irrigation and aspiration groups, stone size did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). The amount of residue stones and dust remaining in the irrigation group was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than the aspiration group. Although many methods have been tried before, we think that the aspiration method we have described is a cheaper, more effective and feasible option.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ramakumar S, Segura JW (2000) Renal calculi. Percutaneous management. Urol Clin N Am 27:617–622

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Osman MM, Alfano Y, Kamp S et al (2005) 5-year follow-up of patients with clinically insignificant residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 47:860–864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pearle MS, Watamull LM, Mullican MA (1999) Sensitivity of noncontrast helical computerized tomography and plain film radiography compared to flexible nephroscopy for detecting residual fragments after percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. J Urol 162:23–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Straub M, Seitz C (2011) Residual stones, EAU guidelines of urolithiasis, vol 61. European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem

    Google Scholar 

  5. Altunrende F, Tefekli A, Stein RJ, Autorino R, Yuruk E, Laydner H (2011) Clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: medium-term follow-up. J Endourol 25(6):941–945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Acar C, Cal C (2012) Impact of residual fragments following endourological treatments in renal stones. Adv Urol 2012:813523

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Panah A, Masood J, Zaman F, Papatsoris AG, El-Husseiny T, Buchholz N (2009) A technique to flush out renal stone fragments during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 23(1):5–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim SC, Kuo RL, Lingeman JE (2003) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update. Curr Opin Urol 13(3):235–241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Straub M, Seitz CS (2016) Residual stones, EAU guidelines of urolithiasis, vol 61. European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem

    Google Scholar 

  10. Khaitan A, Gupta NP, Hemal AK, Dogra PN, Seth A, Aron M (2002) Post-ESWL, clinically insignificant residual stones: reality or myth? Urology 59:20–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Daggett LM, Harbaugh BL, Collum LA (2002) Post-ESWL, clinically insignificant residual stones: reality or myth? Urology 59:20–24

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mager R, Balzereit C, Hüsch T, Herrmann T, Nicklas A, Nagele U, Haferkamp A, Schilling D (2016) Clearance of stone fragments and stone dust by continuous flow hydrodynamics in percutaneous renal surgery: an in vitro study. J Endourol 30(4):441–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Antonelli JA, Beardsley H, Faddegon S, Morgan MS, Gahan JC, Pearle MS, Cadeddu JA (2016) A novel device to prevent stone fragment migration during percutaneous lithotripsy: results from an in vitro kidney model. J Endourol 30(11):1239–1243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hein S, Schoenthaler M, Wilhelm K, Schlager D, Thiel K, Brandmann M, Richter K, Grunwald I, Wetterauer U, Miernik A (2016) Novel biocompatible adhesive for intrarenal embedding and endoscopic removal of small residual fragments after minimally invasive stone treatment in an ex vivo porcine kidney model: initial evaluation of a prototype. J Urol 196(6):1772–1777

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Harran University, Sanliurfa, Turkey

    Bulent Kati, Eyyup Sabri Pelit, Ismail Yagmur, Halil Ciftci & Ercan Yeni

  2. Urology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey

    Yigit Akin

Authors
  1. Bulent Kati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eyyup Sabri Pelit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ismail Yagmur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yigit Akin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Halil Ciftci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ercan Yeni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bulent Kati.

Ethics declarations

Funding

There was no funding associated with this study.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kati, B., Pelit, E.S., Yagmur, I. et al. Which way is best for stone fragments and dust extraction during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urolithiasis 46, 297–302 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0987-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0987-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation