Objective:To evaluate the safety,efficacy and feasibility of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy(mini-PCNL).Methods:A retrospective study was conducted including 200 patients who underwent m...Objective:To evaluate the safety,efficacy and feasibility of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy(mini-PCNL).Methods:A retrospective study was conducted including 200 patients who underwent mini-PCNL for renal stones.All patients underwent PCNL using Electro-Medical Systems laser.In addition to the laser in 100 patients,a suction device was used(laser with suction[LWS]).In the other 100,suction device was not used(laser with no additional suction[LOS]).Mini-PCNL was performed using standard technique and Karl Storz minimally invasive PCNL-medium system was used.Primary end point was stone clearance.Results:Both the groups were comparable in terms of demographic data.Mean stone size was 15.24±5.90 mm and 16.16±5.53 mm in LWS and LOS,respectively.Mean Hounsfield unit of stone was 1285.64 and 1206.79 in LWS and LOS,respectively.Operative time was less in LWS group(56.89±19.65 min)as compared to LOS(62.01±28.81 min).At one-month follow-up,radiological complete clearance was 96%in LWS and 92%in LOS.On subgroup analysis of stones larger than 18 mm,the clearance rate was in favour of LWS(85.7%vs.100%)and also the need for nephrostomy placement was less in LWS group.Conclusions:LWS device is safe and efficacious when used with mini-PCNL.For stones greater than 18 mm,it has a better stone free rate as compared to using no suction.展开更多
文摘Objective:To evaluate the safety,efficacy and feasibility of laser with suction device in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy(mini-PCNL).Methods:A retrospective study was conducted including 200 patients who underwent mini-PCNL for renal stones.All patients underwent PCNL using Electro-Medical Systems laser.In addition to the laser in 100 patients,a suction device was used(laser with suction[LWS]).In the other 100,suction device was not used(laser with no additional suction[LOS]).Mini-PCNL was performed using standard technique and Karl Storz minimally invasive PCNL-medium system was used.Primary end point was stone clearance.Results:Both the groups were comparable in terms of demographic data.Mean stone size was 15.24±5.90 mm and 16.16±5.53 mm in LWS and LOS,respectively.Mean Hounsfield unit of stone was 1285.64 and 1206.79 in LWS and LOS,respectively.Operative time was less in LWS group(56.89±19.65 min)as compared to LOS(62.01±28.81 min).At one-month follow-up,radiological complete clearance was 96%in LWS and 92%in LOS.On subgroup analysis of stones larger than 18 mm,the clearance rate was in favour of LWS(85.7%vs.100%)and also the need for nephrostomy placement was less in LWS group.Conclusions:LWS device is safe and efficacious when used with mini-PCNL.For stones greater than 18 mm,it has a better stone free rate as compared to using no suction.
