A novel double-sheath negative-pressure versus conventional minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large kidney stone.

Publisher: Nature Publishing Group Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101563288 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2045-2322 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 20452322 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Sci Rep Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: London : Nature Publishing Group, copyright 2011-

Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous*/adverse effects ; Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous*/methods ; Kidney Calculi*/surgery ; Kidney Calculi*/complications; Humans ; Treatment Outcome ; Length of Stay ; Postoperative Complications/etiology ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology

This study aims to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of a novel double-sheath negative-pressure minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (D-mPCNL) compared to conventional minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (C-mPCNL) for large kidney stones. A total of 132 patients diagnosed with large kidney stones in our hospital were included in the study. Among them, sixty-eight patients underwent D-mPCNL, while sixty-four underwent C-mPCNL. Parameters such as operative duration, stone-free rate, incidence of postoperative complications, and the need for auxiliary procedures were evaluated between the two groups. Compared to the C-mPCNL group, the D-mPCNL group demonstrated a significantly shorter operative time (41.97 ± 8.24 min vs. 52.30 ± 13.72 min; P < 0.000), lower rates of auxiliary procedures (5.9% vs. 17.2%; P = 0.041), and lower fever rates (2.9% vs. 14.1%; P = 0.021). The group also had a significantly higher primary stone-free rate (85.3% vs. 70.3%; P = 0.038). However, there were no statistically significant advantages in terms of the final stone-free rate, hemoglobin drops, and stone composition in the D-mPCNL group (P > 0.05). D-mPCNL is a novel surgical method that is safe and effective, reducing operative time, improving stone-free efficiency, and decreasing postoperative complications.
(© 2023. The Author(s).)

Urol J. 2020 Jul 21;17(5):474-479. (PMID: 32715455)
BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11 Pt C):E1022-6. (PMID: 22540846)
Indian J Urol. 2017 Jan-Mar;33(1):48-52. (PMID: 28197030)
Int J Surg. 2019 Dec;72:85-90. (PMID: 31689555)
Urologia. 2022 Nov;89(4):570-574. (PMID: 34256620)
Urolithiasis. 2015 Nov;43(6):563-70. (PMID: 26242465)
Transl Androl Urol. 2022 Jan;11(1):79-90. (PMID: 35242643)
World J Urol. 2021 Jun;39(6):1717-1723. (PMID: 32591902)
Eur Urol Focus. 2023 Jul 11;:. (PMID: 37442721)
Urology. 2021 Jul;153:101-106. (PMID: 33417928)
Urol Int. 2022;106(12):1241-1245. (PMID: 34515252)
Eur Urol. 2007 Mar;51(3):810-4; discussion 815. (PMID: 16938385)
World J Urol. 2021 Jul;39(7):2727-2732. (PMID: 32960327)
Urolithiasis. 2022 Oct;50(5):523-533. (PMID: 35953608)
World J Urol. 2016 May;34(5):717-24. (PMID: 26358036)
World J Urol. 2017 Sep;35(9):1361-1368. (PMID: 28124111)
J Endourol. 2021 May;35(5):601-608. (PMID: 33076705)
Urology. 2023 Nov 10;:. (PMID: 37951359)

Date Created: 20231227 Date Completed: 20231229 Latest Revision: 20231230

20231231

PMC10752879

10.1038/s41598-023-50237-7

38151518