Comparison of dilation methods in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Which one is more successful?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorid0000-0002-9155-4126
dc.contributor.authorNalbant, İsmail
dc.contributor.authorKarakoyunlu, Ahmet Nihat
dc.contributor.authorYeşil, Süleyman
dc.contributor.authorEkici, Musa
dc.contributor.authorZengin, Kürşad
dc.contributor.authorÖztürk, Ufuk
dc.contributor.authorİmamoğlu, Muhammed Abdurrahim
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-13T09:02:30Z
dc.date.available2019-05-13T09:02:30Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.departmentHitit Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Cerrahi Tıp Bilimleri Bölümü
dc.description.abstractObjective: Creation of the access tract is an important step in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). In this study, we compared the efficiency and safety of Amplatz, Alken, and balloon dilation methods in the creation of the access tract. Materials and Methods: Data from 487 PNL patients admitted to 517 renal units in 3 centers were analyzed. The Amplatz (280 patients), Alken (142 patients), and balloon (95 patients) dilation methods were compared for their success, duration of the dilation, injury to the collecting system, durations of fluoroscopy and surgery, stone-free and complication rates, pre- and postoperative hematocrit levels, and need for blood transfusion. Results: The dilation methods did not significantly differ with respect to patient demographic data, mean stone area, decrease in hematocrit, need for blood transfusion, unsuccessful tract dilation, injury to the collecting system, stone-free rate, and rate of postoperative complications. The mean fluoroscopy times during Amplatz, Alken, and balloon dilation were 288.52 ± 164.67, 287.34 ± 164.99, and 169.23 ± 21 seconds, respectively. The mean duration of surgery was 96.48 ± 46.07, 94.72 ± 42.25, and 78 ± 25.96 minutes, respectively. The duration of tract creation was 328.67 ± 172.99, 325.14 ± 175.70, and 203.50 ± 32.76 seconds, respectively. The durations of surgery and tract creation were significantly shorter in the balloon dilation group. Conclusion: None of the dilation methods was significantly superior in terms of surgical success, efficiency, or safety. Although balloon dilation was advantageous with respect to time parameters, the role of surgical experience should not be ignored. © Copyright 2016, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2016.
dc.identifier.citationNalbant, İ., Karakoyunlu, A. N., Yeşil, S., Ekici, M., Zengin, K., Öztürk, U., İmamoğlu, M. A. (2016). Comparison of dilation methods in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Which one is more successful?. Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques, 26(6), 478-482.
dc.identifier.doi10.1089/lap.2015.0618
dc.identifier.endpage482en_US
dc.identifier.issn1092-6429
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage478en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2015.0618
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11491/1265
dc.identifier.volume26en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/A
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherMary Ann Liebert Inc.
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject[Belirlenecek]en_US
dc.titleComparison of dilation methods in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Which one is more successful?
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Makale Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu