Comparıson of two dıfferent dılatatıon methods ın percutaneous nephrolıthotomy ın term of safety: One-shot dılatatıon versus stage dılatatıon

Temel Muhammed Cihan; Yılmaz Ömer; Ateş Ferhat; Ediz Caner; Okçelik Sezgin; Akan Serkan

Comparıson of two dıfferent dılatatıon methods ın percutaneous nephrolıthotomy ın term of safety: One-shot dılatatıon versus stage dılatatıon

Authors
Temel Muhammed Cihan, Yılmaz Ömer, Ateş Ferhat, Ediz Caner, Okçelik Sezgin, Akan Serkan

Abstract
Background: To compare one-shot and standard stage amplatz dilatation techniques in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in terms of efficacy and safety method performed in the treatment of kidney stones. Materials and Methods: Eighty patients who underwent PCNL were randomly divided into groups according to staged (group 1) or one-shot (group 2) amplatz dilatation. Amplatz dilatation was applied to the patients in group 1, starting from the 8F dilator, up to 30F in a standard manner. Patients in group 2 were dilated directly with a 30F amplatz dilator and both groups were compared in terms of efficacy and safety. Results: Complete stone-free status was achieved in 35 (87.5%) of the patients in group 1 and in 36 (90%) of the patients in group 2 and no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of stone-free status (p: 0. 72). In group 2, the duration of surgery, dilatation time, and duration of fluoroscopy were significantly shorter (p: 0.001, p: 0.007, p: 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of erythrocyte solution requirement (p: 0. 64). Total complication rates were 15% in both groups, and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of complication rates (p: 1.00). Conclusions: One-shot amplatz dilatation method provided a significant advantage compared to the staged amplatz dilatation method by providing shorter dilatation time, scopy time and total operation time. In addition, it provided a similar rate of pain score, blood loss and hospital stay, resulting in the conclusion that it was a reliable method as safe as standard amplate dilatation.

Download | Pages : 17-21