Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Upper-pole access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Comparison of supracostal and infracostal approaches|
|Abstract:||Background and Purpose: The advantage of upper-pole access for nephrolithotomy is direct access to most of the intrarenal collecting system and upper ureter. Upper-pole access can be achieved either supracostally and subcostally. Because of the anatomic location of the kidneys, the supracostal approach is associated with a higher rate of pulmonary complications. We compared the efficacy and safety of the supracostal and infracostal upper-pole approaches. Patients and Methods: A total 464 patients were treated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) via the upper pole, of which 170 punctures (group I) were performed supracostally and 294 (group II) subcostally. In both groups, PCNL was done by the standard technique with fluoroscopic guidance. The operative time, success rate, hospital stay, and complications in the two groups were compared. Results: Patients were stone free in 82.2% and 77.1% of the cases in groups I and II, respectively, and had stone fragments <4 mm in 10.7% and 14.7%, respectively. The operative time, success rate, and septic and hemorrhagic complications were not significantly different in the two groups. Hydrothorax was found in 26 patients (15.3%) of group I and 4 (1.4%) of group II. Only 9 patients (5.3%) in group I needed intercostal drainage. Conclusion: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy via the upper pole is effective using both supracostal and infracostal approaches, with acceptable rates of complications. The rate of pulmonary complications is higher with the supracostal approach. If the supracostal approach is indicated, it should be used with caution. © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.|
|Appears in Collections:||CMUL: Journal Articles|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.