Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
  • Register
  • Login

Urology Journal

  • Home
  • Instant Online
    • Instant 2026
    • Instant 2023
    • Instant 2021
    • Instant 2020
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Announcements
  • Submissions
  • Author Guidelines
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Editorial Team
    • Privacy Statement
    • Contact
Advanced Search
  1. Home
  2. Archives
  3. Vol. 10 No. 4 (2013): AUTUMN
  4. ORIGINAL PAPER (ENDOUROLOGY AND STONE DISEASE)

Vol. 10 No. 4 (2013)

January 2014

Renal Access by Sonographer versus Urologist during Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

  • Yanbo Wang
  • Zhihua Lu
  • Jinghai Hu
  • Xiaoqing Wang
  • Ji Lu
  • Yuanyuan Hao
  • Yan Wang
  • Qihui Chen
  • Fengming Jiang
  • Haifeng Zhang
  • Ning Xu
  • Yuchuan Hou
  • Chunxi Wang

Urology Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4 (2013), 4 January 2014 , Page 1035-1039
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v10i4.1580 Published: 2014-01-04

  • View Article
  • Download
  • Cite
  • Statastics
  • Share

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the percutaneous access outcomes and complications following percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) that was obtained by sonographer or urologist at a single academic institution.

Material and Methods: A retrospective chart review of 259 patients who underwent PCNL was performed. Patients were stratified according to percutaneous access by sonographer (group 1) or urologist (group 2) in 174 and 85 patients, respectively. Demographic, stone characteristics, operative variables, percutaneous access complications and stone-free rates were compared between groups.

Results: The major complication rate and minor complication rate, mean blood loss and rates of blood transfusion were comparable between groups. Compared with urologist, sonographer preferred

to choose subcostal rib puncture instead of intercostal rib puncture. The lower calyx was the most frequent site of target calyx puncture in group 1 (165 cases, 94.8%), while the percentage of lower calyx in group 2 was 82.3% (72 cases) (P = .001). The overall stone-free rates were significantly higher in group 2 than that in group 1 (90.6% vs. 79.9%, P = .03). In group 1, 23 cases (13.2%) needed post-operative extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), while, the percentage of post-operative SWL in group 2 was only 4.7% (4 cases) (P = .035).

Conclusions: Renal access in PCNL can be safely and successfully obtained by both sonographer and urologist. Infracostal and lower calyx access in our study has poor stone-free rates and sonographer

prefers infracostal and lower access. We encourage urologists establish renal access by themselves during PCNL.

  • PDF

How to Cite

Wang, Y., Lu, Z., Hu, J., Wang, X., Lu, J., Hao, Y., … Wang, C. (2014). Renal Access by Sonographer versus Urologist during Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Urology Journal, 10(4), 1035–1039. https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v10i4.1580
  • ACM
  • ACS
  • APA
  • ABNT
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • MLA
  • Turabian
  • Vancouver
  • Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
  • BibTeX
  • Abstract Viewed: 440 times
  • PDF Downloaded: 246 times

Download Statastics

  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Telegram

Information

  • For Readers
  • For Authors

Developed By

Open Journal Systems
  • Home
  • Archives
  • Submissions
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Team
  • Contact
Powered by OJSPlus