Comparison of the results of pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy with different sized instruments

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorCelik, Huseyin
dc.contributor.authorCamtosun, Ahmet
dc.contributor.authorDede, Onur
dc.contributor.authorDagguli, Mansur
dc.contributor.authorAltintas, Ramazan
dc.contributor.authorTasdemir, Cemal
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-24T15:59:54Z
dc.date.available2024-04-24T15:59:54Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.departmentDicle Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractWe aim to compare the outcomes, including the morbidity and success rates in children undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) using different sized devices. According to the size of instruments used during surgery, three different groups (ultra-mini-PCNL, mini-PCNL and adult size PCNL) were composed and the outcomes were compared between the groups. PCNL was applied to 225 renal units of 220 children, including 5 patients with bilateral kidney stones. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy was performed using adult instruments (24 F) in 82 renal units, using pediatric instruments (18 F) in 89 and using minimal-size instruments (9.5 F) in 50. One-hundred and twenty-four girls and 96 boys with a mean age of 8.33 (< 17) years were assessed. Stone-free rates were 78 % in group 1 (n = 39) using 9.5 F nephroscope, 75.8 % in group 2 (n = 69) using 18 F nephroscope and 71.4 % in group 3 (n = 60) using 24 F nephroscope. Time to access the collecting system, operative time, duration of nephrostomy and average postoperative hospital stay did not differ between the groups. However, mean hematocrit drop and stone burden were significantly lesser in ultra-mini-PCNL group. There was no significant difference in the complication rates between the groups, according to the modified Clavien classification system. As the important complication of PCNL, bleeding seems to be associated with diameter of dilatation, calibre of nephroscopes and stone burden. To reduce the certain complications, pediatric type of instruments is suitable but the use of adult instruments and techniques may achieve equal results.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00240-016-0887-4
dc.identifier.endpage208en_US
dc.identifier.issn2194-7228
dc.identifier.issn2194-7236
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.pmid27155829
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84966318848
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage203en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0887-4
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11468/14305
dc.identifier.volume45en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000398177700007
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofUrolithiasis
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectKidney Calculien_US
dc.subjectPercutaneous Nephrolithotomyen_US
dc.subjectPediatricsen_US
dc.subjectInstrument Typeen_US
dc.titleComparison of the results of pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy with different sized instrumentsen_US
dc.titleComparison of the results of pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy with different sized instruments
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu

We collect and process your personal information for the following purposes: Authentication, Preferences, Acknowledgement and Statistics.
To learn more, please read our privacy policy.

Customize