Endoscopic combined ultrasound-guided access vs. ultrasound-guided access in endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery

  • Ning KANG ,
  • Yi-hang JIANG ,
  • Yu-guang JIANG ,
  • Li-yang WU ,
  • Ji-qing ZHANG ,
  • Yi-nong NIU ,
  • Jun-hui ZHANG
Expand
  • Department of Urology Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100020, China

Received date: 2020-04-13

  Online published: 2020-08-06

Supported by

Capital Health Development Research Project(2016-1-2241)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the outcomes of endoscopic combined ultrasound-guided access (EUGA) with the conventional ultrasound-guided access (UGA) to achieve percutaneous renal access in endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS). Methods: A retrospective review of 53 patients undergoing ECIRS to treat upper urinary tract calculi between January 2017 and October 2019 was con-ducted. All of the cases were of complex upper urinary tract stones larger than 2 cm in diameter. The com-plex stone situations, such as multiple renal calyces calculi or staghorn calculi necessitated ECIRS. Under general anesthesia, the patients were placed in the galdakao-modified supine valdivia (GMSV) position, thus allowing both antegrade and retrograde accesss. The patients were divided to UGA and EUGA groups according to the protocol of achieving percutaneous renal access. In 28 cases, endoscopic combined ultrasound-guided accesss were obtained. Puncture and dilation were performed under direct flexible ureteroscopic visualization, while percutaneous renal access of 25 cases were performed with the conventional technique employing ultrasound guidance. Demographic and perioperative information, such as stone burden, presence of hydronephrosis and number of calyces involved was compared. Primary outcomes included total operative time, renal access time, repeat puncture, hemoglobin level, perioperative complications, and stone-free rate. Results: No major intra-operative complication was recorded in all the 53 ECRIS. No significant difference was observed between the groups in age and gender. There was no significant difference in body mass index[BMI (29.21±3.14) kg/m2 vs.(28.53±2.56) kg/m2], stone burden (37.68±6.89) mm vs. (35.53±6.52) mm, number of calyces involved 2.72±0.68 vs. 2.86±0.71, presence of hydronephrosis (56.0% vs. 46.4%), total operative time (93.0±12.2) min vs. (96.8±14.2) min, hemoglobin level reduction (6.56±2.16) g/L vs. 97.54±2.64) g/L, stone-free rate (92.0% vs. 92.8%), hospital stay (5.52±0.59) d vs. (5.64±0.62) d, perioperative complication rate (8.0% vs. 7.2%). Two patients in EUGA group experienced perioperative complications (one urinary tract infection and one hematuria) while two patients in UGA group experienced perioperative urinary tract infection. None in both groups received blood transfusion. The patients undergoing EUGA had shorter renal access time [(4.0±0.7) min vs. (6.8±2.6) min, P <0.01] and less repeat puncture (0 vs. 4 cases, P<0.05). Conclusion: EUGA is an optimal technique to establish percutaneous renal access in ECIRS, which minimizes access time and repeated procedures.

Cite this article

Ning KANG , Yi-hang JIANG , Yu-guang JIANG , Li-yang WU , Ji-qing ZHANG , Yi-nong NIU , Jun-hui ZHANG . Endoscopic combined ultrasound-guided access vs. ultrasound-guided access in endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2020 , 52(4) : 692 -696 . DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.04.018

References

[1] Zeng G, Mai Z, Xia S, et al. Prevalence of kidney stones in China: an ultrasonography based cross-sectional study[J]. BJU Int, 2017,120(1):109-116.
[2] Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline. PART Ⅱ[J]. J Urol, 2016,196(4):1161-1169.
[3] Türk C, Pet?ík A, Sarica K, et al. EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis[J]. Eur Urol, 2016,69(3):475-482.
[4] 那彦群, 叶章群, 孙颖浩, 等. 中国泌尿外科疾病诊断治疗指南2014版[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2013: 1.
[5] Atis G, Culpan M, Pelit ES, et al. Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in treating 20-40 mm renal stones[J]. Urol J, 2017,14(2):2995-2999.
[6] 杨波, 李建兴, 胡卫国, 等. 两步法建立标准通道经皮肾镜取石3 052例临床报告[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2010,42(4):447-450.
[7] Kwon O, Park J, Cho MC, et al. Feasibility of single-session endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for ipsilateral large renal stones and retrograde intrarenal surgery for contralateral renal stones: initial experience[J]. INT J Urol, 2017,24(5):377-382.
[8] Ping H, Zhang JH, Wang MS, et al. Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for the treatment of postpercutaneous nephrolithotomy residual stones[J]. Chin Med J (Engl), 2016,129(23):2885-2887.
[9] Wen J, Xu G, Du C, et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery with flexible ureteroscope for partial staghorn calculi: a randomised controlled trial[J]. Int J Surg, 2016,28:22-27.
[10] Grasso M, Lang G, Taylor FC. Flexible ureteroscopically assisted percutaneous renal access[J]. Tech Urol, 1995,1(1):39-43.
[11] Chi T, Masic S, Li J, et al. Ultrasound guidance for renal tract access and dilation reduces radiation exposure during percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J/OL]. Adv Urol, 2016 (2016): 1-8 [2020-04-10]. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/au/2016/3840697/.
[12] Ng FC, Yam WL, Lim TY, et al. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy: advantages and limitations[J]. Investig Clin Urol, 2017,58(5):346-352.
[13] de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M, et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy globalstudy: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5 803 patients[J]. J Endourol, 2011,25(1):11-17.
[14] Kawahara T, Ito H, Terao H, et al. Ureteroscopy assisted retrograde nephrostomy: a new technique for percutaneous nephroli-thotomy (PCNL)[J]. BJU Int, 2011,110(4):588-590.
Outlines

/