Ekstrakorporal şok dalga litotripsi ve perkütan nefrolitotominin renal fonksiyonlar üzerine etkilerinin karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, ekstrakorporal şok dalga litotripsi SWL ve perkütan nefrolitotominin PNL bölgesel ve genel renal fonksiyonlar üzerine etkilerinin tek foton emisyonlu bilgisayarlı tomografi SPECT ile karşılaştırılmasını amaçladık.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Şubat 2006 ile Aralık 2011 tarihleri arasında 1,5-2,5 cm arası renal pelvis taşı olan hastalar prospektif randomize olarak SWL n:22 ve PNL n:20 gruplarına ayrıldı. SWL için elektrohidrolik spark gap jeneratör kullanıldı. PNL için hastalara posterior alt kaliksten tek giriş yapıldı. SPECT için teknesyum99m-dimerkaptosüksinik asit Tc99m-DMSA kullanıldı. Hastaların, tedaviden bir hafta önce ve 6 ay sonraki SPECT taramaları, genel ve bölgesel renal fonksiyonlar açısından karşılaştırıldı.Bulgular: SWL grubunda ortalama taş boyutu 19,3±3mm , 15 %68 vaka işlem sonrası ortalama şok sayısı 5458±1251 taşlardan tamamen temizlendi. Beş vakada işlem sonrası alt kalisiyel sistemde rest taş kaldı. İki hastada ise düşürülemeyen üreteral fragmanlar nedeni ile üreterorenoskopik pnömatik litotripsi yapıldı. PNL grubundaki ortalama taş boyutu 20,1±2,4mm tüm hastalarda taşlar tamamen temizlendi. İşlem öncesi ve sonrası SPECT taramaları karşılaştırıldığında, genel ve lokal tutulum kaybı SWL grubunda tedavi edilen böbreklerdeki %3,36±0,78 ve %2,64±0,83, PNL grubunda %2,68±1,1 ve %1,56±0,62 olup anlamlı farklılık göstermemektedir.Sonuç: Böbrek taşı tedavisinde SWL daha az travmatik yöntem olarak görünmesine karşın, büyük böbrek taşlarında tekrarlayan seanslara ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Bu durumda oluşan parankimal hasar daha fazla olmaktadır. Böbrek taşı tedavisinde SWL ve PNL seçimi yapılması gereken durumlarda, bu durum dikkate alınmalıdır

Keywords

• Böbrek taşı,perkütan nefrolitotomi,Ekstrakorporal Şok Dalga Litotripsi

Comparison of the effects of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy on renal functions

Abstract

Objective: In this study, we compared the effects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy SWL and percutaneous nephrolithotomy PNL on local and global renal functions by single photon emission computed tomography SPECT . Materials and Methods: Patients with renal pelvis stones sized between 1.5 and 2.5 cm were prospectively randomised into SWL n22 and PNL n:20 groups between February 2006-December 2011. An electrohydraulic generator was used for SWL. A single posterior lower caliceal access was used for PNL. Technetium99m-dimercaptosuccinic acid Tc99m-DMSA was used for SPECT scans. SPECT scans, obtained one week before and 6 months after treatment, were compared for local and global renal functions. Results: 15 68% cases of SWL group mean stone size:19,3±3mm were stonefree after treatment average shock number: 5458±1251 . There were residual fragments in the lower calyx in 5 cases. Ureterorenoscopic pneumatic lithotripsy was performed in another 2 cases due to nonpassing ureteral fragments. Stones of the patients in PNL group mean stone size:20,1±2,4mm were removed completely. When pretreatment and posttreatment SPECT scans were compared, loss in local and global uptakes of the treated kidneys were 2,64±0,83% and 3,36±0,78% in SWL group and 1,56±0,62% and 2,68±1,1% in PNL group, respectively. There was no significant difference between groups. Conclusion: Although SWL seems a less traumatic method in treatment of renal calculi, several repeat sessions are required for large calculi. So, the consequent parenchymal injury is more after SWL. When a decision is to be made between SWL and PNL for treatment of renal calculi, this situation should be considered

Keywords

• Renal calculus,percutaneous nephrolithotomy

References

1. Melih A, Tarık E, Sedat T. Urinary stone disease in Turkey: an updated epidemiological study. Eur Urol 1991; 20: 200-3.
2. Lingeman JE, Coury TA, Newman DM, Kahnoski RJ, Mertz JHO, Mosbaugh PG, Steele RE, Woods JR: Comparison of results and morbility of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J. Urol 1987; 138: 485-90.
3. Mays N, Petruckevitch A, Burney PG: Results of one and two year follow up in a clinical comparison of ESWL and PCNL in the treatment of real calculi.Scand J. Urol. Neph- rol 1992; 26: 43–9.
4. Lechevallier E, Siles S, Ortega JC, Coulange C. Comparison by SPECT of renal scars after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endou- rol. 1993; 7(6):465-7.
5. Gordon I. Indications for 99m-technetium dimercapto- succinic acid scan in children. J Urol 1987; 137: 464-7
6. Yen TC, Chen WP, Chang SL, Liu RS, Yeh SH, Lin CY. Technetium-99m-DMSA renal SPECT in diagnosing and monitoring pediatric acute pyelonephritis. J Nucl Med. 1996; 37(8): 1349-53.
7. Majd M, Rushton HG. Renal cortical scintigraphy in the diagnosis of acute pyelonephritis. Semin Nucl Med. 1992; 22(2): 98-111.
8. Crabbe DC, Thomas DF, Gordon AC, Irving HC, Arthur RJ, Smith SE. Use of 99m-technetium-dimercaptosuccinic acid to study patterns of renal damage associated with pre- natally detected vesicoureteral reflux. J Urol. 1992; 148(4): 1229-31.

9. Taylor A Jr. Quantitation of renal function with static ima- ging agents. Semin Nucl Med. 1982; 12(4): 330-44.
10. Fernström I and Johannson B: Percutaneous pyelolitho- tomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J. Urol.Nephrol 1976; 10: 257-9.
11. Smith AD, Reinke DB, Miller RP and Lange PH: Percutane- ous nephrostomy in the management of ureteral and renal calculi. Radiology 1979; 133: 49-54.
12. Chaussy C, Schmeidt E, Jochman D, et al: First clinical ex- perience extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. J. Urol 1982; 131: 417.
13. Kane CJ, Bolton DM, Stoller ML: Current indications for open stone surgery in an endourology center. Urology 1995; 45: 218.
14. Clayman RV, Mc Dougall EM, Nakada SY: Percutaneous therapeutic procedures. Campbell’s Urology (Walsh PC, Re- tik AB, Stamey TA, Vaughan ED, ed) seventh edition. Phile- delphia, Saunders 1998 Vol 3, 2809 – 30.
15. Stoller ML, Bolton DM: Urinary stone disease. Smith’s Ge- neral Urology (Tanagho EA, McAninch JW, ed). Norwalk, Appleton and Lange. 1995; 276 – 300.
16. Wolf JS, Clayman RV: Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: What is its role in 1997? Urol Clin North America 1997; 24: 43.
17. Lingeman JE, Newman E, Mertz JHD, Mosbaugh PG, Ste- ele RG, Kahnoski RJ, Coury TA, Woods JR: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: The Methodist Hospital of Indiana experience. J. Urol 1986; 135: 1134-7.
18. Groshar D, Frankel A, Iosilevsky G, Israel O, Mosko- vitz B, Levin DR, Front D. Quantitation of renal uptake of technetium-99m DMSA using SPECT. J Nucl Med. 1989; 30(2): 246-50.
19. Groshar D, Ginessin J, Moskovitz B, Frenkel A, Israel O, Le- vin DR, Front D. Effect of extracorporeal piezoelectric lit- hotripsy shock waves on renal function measured by Tc- 99m-DMSA using SPECT. Urology. 1991; 38(6): 537-9.
20. Elgazzar AH, Mahmoud AH, el-Sayed M, Nilson TE, Abdel- Dayem HM, Fettich G, al-Mohannadi S. Evaluation of renal functional changes after extracorporeal piezoelectric lithot- ripsy (EPL) by radionuclide studies. Nucl Med Commun. 1990; 11(8): 579-83.
21. Moskovitz B, Halachmi S, Sopov V, Burbara J, Horev N, Groshar D, Nativ O. Effect of percutaneous nephrolit- hotripsy on renal function: assessment with quantitative SPECT of (99m)Tc-DMSA renal scintigraphy. J Endourol. 2006; 20(2): 102-6.
22. Bayram A, Esmaoglu A, Akin A, Baskol G, Aksu R, Bicer C, Demirtas A, Mutluay R, Boyaci A. The effects of intraope- rative infusion of dexmedetomidine on early renal functi- on after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2011;55:539-44.
23. Lebkowska U, Malyszko J, Lebkowska A, Koc-Zorawska E, Lebkowski W, Malyszko JS, Kowalewski R, Gacko M. Neut- rophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin and cystatin C could predict renal outcome in patients undergoing kidney allog- raft transplantation: a prospective study. Transplant Proc. 2009;41(1):154-7.
24. Lechevallier E, Siles S, Ortega JC, Coulange C. Compari- son by SPECT of renal scars after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endou- rol. 1993; 7(6): 465-7.