Our initial experience with percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children

Year 2014, , 151 - 155, 01.03.2014

Mehmet Hanifi Okur Mehmet Şerif Arslan Bahattin Aydoğdu Serkan Arslan İbrahim Uygun Abdurrahman Önen Selçuk Otçu

https://doi.org/10.5798/diclemedj.0921.2014.01.0390

Abstract

Objective: To present our initial experience on percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in children between March 2012 and November 2013. Methods: 13 renal units of 12 patients underwent PCNL. Patients were evaluated in terms of age, preoperatively in terms of urine, blood count, urine culture, serum biochemical, and routine coagulation tests and radiological examinations, stone location, stone burden (according to plain radiograph), preoperative use of nephrostomy and average fluoroscopic manipulation time. To facilitate access, prior mechanical dilatation was performed nephrostomy access tract. After the PCNL procedure, we placed nephrostomy in all patients postoperatively. They were evaluated with regard to residual stone, complications (according to the Clavien classification) and outcomes. Results: Average age was 11 years (6-15). There was no abnormality in Laboratory Screening. Location of 11 stones was renal pelvis and 2 stones was pelvis + calyx. The average stone size was 260 mm². Preoperative acces were provided in 3 patients, others were intraoperatively. Average fluoroscopic manipulation time was 4,8 minutes (2-11). At the first postoperative day, 11 (85 %) patients achieved a completely stone-free state. Complications were seen in 3 patients; failure of renal access in one patient (Grade 3b), urine leakage was observed after surgery in one (Grade 3a), postoperative blood transfusion required in one patient (Grade 2). The hospital stay duration was 5,5 days (5-7 days). Conclusions: Pediatric PCNL is a minimal invasive procedure which provides high rate of stone free and good cosmetics. İf there is adequate facilities and equipment with experienced persons, this procedure can easily be used in pediatric surgery clinics.

Keywords

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy; pediatric; treatment.

Our initial experience with percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children

Abstract

Amaç: Mart 2012 ve Kasım 2013 tarihleri arasında Dicle Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Çocuk Cerrahisi Kliniğinde çocuk yaş grubunda yapılan perkütan nefrolitotomi (PNL) deneyimlerimizi sunmaktır. Yöntemler: On üç böbrek ünitesine (12 hasta) PNL uygulandı. Hastalar, yaş, ameliyat öncesi idrar, idrar kültürü, tam kan sayımı, serum biyokimyası, rutin koagülasyon ile radyolojik tetkikler, taş yerleşimi, taş yükü (direk grafiye göre), operasyon öncesi nefrostomi kullanımı, ortalama floroskopi süresi yönünden değerlendirildi. Nefrostomi traktından erişim mekanik dilatasyon sonrası sağlandı. PNL prosedürü sonrası hastalar, rezidü (>4 mm), komplikasyonlar (Clavien sınıflamasına göre) ve tedavi sonuçları yönünden değerlendirildi. Tüm hastalara postoperatif nefrostomi yerleştirildi. Bulgular: Hastaların yaş ortalamaları 11(6-14) yıl olarak saptandı. Laboratuar testleri normal idi. Taşların 11\'i pelvis renalis, 2\'si pelvis + kaliks yerleşimliydi. Ortalama taş boyutu 260 mm2 idi. 10 renal üniteye intraoperatif, 3 renal üniteye preoperatif renal giriş sağlandı. Ortalama floroskopik manipülasyon süresi 4,8 dakika (2-11) idi. Post operatif 1 günde taşsızlık oranı %85 idi. Komplikasyonlar toplam 3 hastada görüldü; bir hastada renal erişim sağlanamadı (Grade 3b), bir hastada ameliyat esnasında işlem sonunda pelvis ekstravazasyonu görüldü (Grade 3a). Bir hastada post op transfüzyon gerekti (Grade 2). Ortalama hastanede yatış süresi 5.5 gün (5-7 gün) idi. Sonuç: Pediatrik PNL işlemi, yüksek taşsızlık oranı, belirgin estetik üstünlük ve minimal invaziv cerrahi girişim sağlar. Yeterli donanım ve ekipmanın bulunduğu çocuk cerrahi kliniklerinde deneyimli kişiler tarafından, PNL prosedürü kolaylıkla kullanılabilir.

Keywords

Perkütan nefrolitotomi; çocuk; tedavi.

References

• Fernström I, Johannson B. Percutaneous pyelithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1976;10:257- 259.
• Woodside JR, Stevens GF, Stark GL, et al. Percutaneous stone removal in children. J Urol 1985;134:1166-1167.
• Ünsal A. Çocuklarda böbrek taşı tedavisinde perkütan ne- frolitotomi. Endoüroloji Bülteni 2008;4:1-6.
• Unsal A, Resorlu B, Kara C, et al. Safety and efficacy of per- cutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants, preschool age, and older children with different sizes of instruments. Urology 2010;76:247-252.
• Istanbulluoglu O, Ozturk A, Ozturk B, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy is highly efficient and safe in infants and children under 3 years of age. Urol Int 2010;85:455-460.
• Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of sur- gical complications. A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.
• Akıncı M, Esen T, Tellaloğlu S. Urinary stone disease in Turkey: an update epidemiological study. Eur Urol 1991;20:200-3
• Öner A, Demircin G, İpekçioglu H, Bülbül M, Ecin N. Etio- logical and clinical patterns of urolithiasis in Turkish chil- dren. Eur Urol 1997;31:453-468
• Sahin A, Tekgül S, Erdem E, et al. Percutaneous nephroli- thotomy in older children. J Pediatr Surg 2000;35:1336- 1338.
• Zeren S, Satar N, Bayazit Y, et al. Percutaneous nephro- lithotomy in the management of pediatric renal calculi. J Endourol 2002;16:75-78.
• Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, et al. Guidelines on Urolithiasis European Association of Urology 2012.
• Farhat WA, Kropp BP. Surgical treatment of pediatric uri- nary stones. AUA Update Series 2007;26:3.
• Wu HY, Docimo SG. Surgical management of children with urolithiasis. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31:589-594.
• Salah MA, Tóth C, Khan AM, Holman E. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children: experience with 138 cases in a developing country. World J Urol 2004;22:277-280.
• DeMarco RT. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children. Adv Urol 2011;2011:123-606.
• J. Stuart Wolf, Jr. MD. Percutaneous Approaches to the Up- per Urinary Tract Collecting System. Campbell’s Urology 2012, 10. Baskı, 47. Bölüm.
• Netto NR Jr, Ikonomidis J, Ikari O, Claro JA. Comparative study of percutaneous access for staghorn calculi. Urology 2005;65:659-663.
• Lingeman JE, Coury TA, Newman DM, et al. Comparison of results and morbidity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 1987; 138:485-490.
• Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ. Complications in per- cutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 2007;51:899–906.
• Yalçın V, Uzun H. Üriner taş hastalığının cerrahi tedavisi. Anafarta MK, Yaman MÖ, eds. Campell Üroloji. 8. baskı, Ankara: Öncü Basımevi - Güneş Kitapevi, 2005;3361-451.
• Skoog SJ, Reed MD, Gaudier FA Jr, Dunn NP. The postero- lateral and the retrorenal colon: implication in percutaneous stone extraction. J Urol 1985;134:110-112.
• Doğan HS, Kılıçarslan H, Oktay B. Çocuk hastada perkutan nefrolitotomi sırasında oluşan kolon perforasyonu ve teda- visi. Türk Üroloji Dergisi 2009;35:153-156.
• Gedik A, Tutus A, Kayan D, et al. Percutaneous nephroli- thotomy in pediatric patients: is computerized tomography a must? Urol Res 2011;39:45-49.
• Armitage JN, Irving SO, Burgess NA. British association of urological surgeons section of endourology: Percutane- ous nephrolithotomy in the United kingdom: results of a prospective data registry. J Endourol 2012;61:1188-1193.
• Agrawal MS, Agrawal M, Gupta A, et al. Randomized com- parison of tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithot- omy. J Endourol 2008;22:439-442.
• Wadhwa P, Aron M, Bal SC, et al. Critical prospective ap- praisal of renal morphology and function in children un- dergoing shockwave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephroli- thotomy. J Endourol 2007;21:961-966.
• Moskovitz B, Halachmi S, Sopor V, et al. Effect of percu- taneous nephrolithothripsy on renal function: Assessment with quantitative SPECT of 99mTc-DMSA renal sintigrafi. J Endourol 2006;20:102-106.