Comparison of Monoplanar and Biplanar Access Techniques for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorDede, Onur
dc.contributor.authorBas, Okan
dc.contributor.authorSancaktutar, Ahmet Ali
dc.contributor.authorDaggulli, Mansur
dc.contributor.authorUtangac, Mazhar
dc.contributor.authorPenbegül, Necmettin
dc.contributor.authorHatipoglu, Namik Kemal
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-24T17:08:01Z
dc.date.available2024-04-24T17:08:01Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.departmentDicle Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The aim of this study was to compare the positive aspects and complications of monoplanar and biplanar access techniques used in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) based on the modified Clavien complication grading system. Patients and Methods: The data from patients who underwent PCNL using either monoplanar access (group 1) or biplanar access (group 2) techniques were analyzed retrospectively. For the biplanar technique, puncture is adjusted based on different fluoroscopic projections, including vertical and 30 degree positions. For the monoplanar technique, a C-arm fluoroscope was brought into vertical position, the collecting system was visualized with a contrast agent, and the most appropriate calix was selected to extract the targeted stone. Results: The monoplanar technique was performed for renal access in 310 patients (group 1), and the biplanar technique was used for renal access in 351 patients (group 2). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to demographic data. The mean puncture time was significantly lower in group 1 (monoplanar) when compared with that of group 2 (biplanar, P=0.04). The overall success rates of the monoplanar and biplanar groups were 88% and 89% (including clinically insignifican residual fragments in 9% and 7%), respectively (P>0.05), and the complication rates of both groups were similar. Conclusion: The monoplanar access technique, which is safe to use, decreases puncture time, minimizes the surgeon's direct exposure time to radiation, and has similar success rates as the biplanar access technique.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1089/end.2015.0166
dc.identifier.endpage997en_US
dc.identifier.issn0892-7790
dc.identifier.issn1557-900X
dc.identifier.issue9en_US
dc.identifier.pmid25919344
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84941143764
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage993en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0166
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11468/17160
dc.identifier.volume29en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000360591100003
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMary Ann Liebert, Incen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Endourology
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subject[No Keyword]en_US
dc.titleComparison of Monoplanar and Biplanar Access Techniques for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomyen_US
dc.titleComparison of Monoplanar and Biplanar Access Techniques for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

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