Aynı klinikte yapılan 200 perkütan nefrolitotomi operasyonunu uygulayan daha önce perkütan eğitimi almış ve almamış iki farklı cerrahın iki dönem sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi

Year 2016, Volume: 11 Issue: 2, 6 - 13, 01.05.2016

Eyüp Veli Küçük Uğur Boylu M Serdar Buğday

Abstract

Amaç: Kliniğimizde 200 perkütan nefrolitotomi PNL olgusu, daha önce PNL için çeşitli eğitim kursları alan ve öğrenme eğrisini başka bir klinikte tamamlayan tecrübeli bir cerrah ile ilk defa farklı bir tecrübeli cerrah gözetiminde PNL yapmaya başlayan diğer bir cerrah tarafından uygulanmıştır.Amacımız bu 200 olguyu iki dönem halinde incelemek ve her iki cerrah için preoperatif, operatif ve postoperatif hasta verilerini ve başarı oranlarını bu dönemler içerisinde karşılaştırmaktır. Yöntem ve Gereçler: Kliniğimizde Ağustos 2010 ile Temmuz 2012 yılları arasında uygulanan 200 PNL operasyonu iki dönem halinde incelenerek tecrübeli ve tecrübesiz cerrah by experienced or inexperienced surgeons. All tarafından yapılan operasyonlar olmak üzere facts’ preoperative and demogrophic datas were iki gruba ayrıldı. Tüm olguların preoperatif verileri ve demografik verileri değerlendirmeye case of the size of the stone, stone localization, alındı. Olgular ayrıca taş boyutu, taş lokalizasthe duration of the operation, fluoroscopy, proyonu, operasyon süresi, skopi süresi, nefrostomi alınma süresi, preoperatif hemoglobin ve tive hemoglobin and hematocrit, postoperative hematokrit oranları, postoperatif hemoglobin hemoglobin and hematocrit, the rates of compve hematokrit oranları, komplikasyon oranları, transfüzyon oranları ve taşsızlık oranları bakımından karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: İlk dönemde tecrübeli cerrahın operasyon süresi 2,21 saat, tecrübesiz cerrahın operasyon süresi 2,76 saat olarak bulundu. Yine skopi süreleri tecrübeli cerrah için 2,81 dakika olarak hesaplanırken, tecrübesiz cerrahta bu rostomy tube. W ere calculated as 2.75 days for süre 4,05 dakika olarak hesaplandı. Nefrostomi alında süreleri tecrübeli cerrah için 2,75 gün, tecrübesiz cerrah için 3,84 gün olarak hesaplandı. Tecrübeli grupta sadece 4 hastaya transfüzyon uygulanırken, tecrübesiz grupta 14 hastaya transfüzyon uygulandı. İlk dönem için her iki cerrah arasında operasyon süreleri, skopi süreleri ve nefrostomi alınma süreleri, transfüzyon oranları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptandı p

Keywords

perkütan nefrolitotomi , böbrek taşı , komplikasyon

The evaluation of 200 pnl procedure results which was made by an experienced and inexperienced surgeons in two different periods at the same clinic

Abstract

Objective: In our clinic, 200 percutaneous nephrolithotomy PNL cases were perfomed by an experienced surgeon who was completed his training and learning curve in another centre and an unexperienced surgeon who was starting PNL under an experienced surgeon’s supervision. Our aim is to examine these 200 cases in two periods, and to compare the preoperative, operative and postoperative patient’s data and success ratios for both of surgeons within this period. Material and Methods: In our clinic; the 200 PNL operations, which were performed between August 2010 and July 2012, were examined and seperated into two groups as performed by experienced or inexperienced surgeons. All facts’ preoperative and demogrophic datas were evaluated. Besides; the facts were compared in case of the size of the stone, stone localization, the duration of the operation, fluoroscopy, process of nephroscopy taken, the rates of preoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit, postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit, the rates of complication, transfusion rates and being stone-free. Findings: The experienced surgeon’s operation time was 2.21 hours and inexperienced surgeon’s was 2.76 hours. Again; scopy periods/ durations were calculated as 2.81 minutes for the experienced and 4.05 minutes for inexperienced surgeon. The duration of removal of nephrostomy tube. W ere calculated as 2.75 days for the experienced and 3.84 days for the inexperienced surgeon. In the experienced group, only 4 transfusions were made, yet in inexperienced group, this number reached 14. For the first period; a meaningful difference was determined statistically between both the surgeons in the duration of operation, scopies and removing nefrostomy and transfusion rates p

Keywords

percutaneous nephrolithotomy , kidney stone , complication

References

• Fernström I, Johansson B: Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1976
• Aras N, Kadıoğlu A, Müslümanoğlu AY: Perkütan nefro- litotomi. Türk Üroloji Dergisi 1989; 15: 565-572.
• Yalçın V, Önder AU, Kalkan M: Böbrek taşı tedavisinde 463 perkütan nefrolitotomi uygulaması. Türk Üroloji Der- gisi 2002; Kongre Özel Sayısı:p62.
• Tanriverdi O, Boylu U, Kendirci M, Kadihasanoglu M, Horasanli K, Miroglu C: The learning curve in the trai- ning of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 2007; 52:206-211.
• Chung BI, Aron M, Hegarty NJ, Desai MM: Ureterosco- pic versus percutaneous treatment for medium-size (1-2 cm) renal calculi. J Endourol 2008; 22:343-6.
• De la Rosette JJ, Laguna MP, Rassweiler JJ, Conort P: Training in percutaneous nephrolithotomy-a critical revi- ew. Eur Urol 2008;54:994-1001.
• Watterson JD, Soon S, Jana K: Access related complica- tions during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: urology ver- sus radiology at a single academic institution. J Urol 2006; 176:142-5.
• Allen D, O’Brien T, Tiptaft R, Glass J: Defining the lear- ning curve for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2005; 19:279-282.
• Hasun R, Ryan PC, Marberger M: Percutaneous coagu- lum nephrolithotripsy: a new approach. Br J Urol 1985; 57:605-9.
• Goldwasser B, John L, Carson C: Factors effecting the success rate of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and the in- cidence of retained fragments, J Urol 1986; 136:358–360.
• Michaels EK, Fowler JE Jr., Manino M: Bacteriuria follo- wing ESWL of infected stones. J Urol 1988; 140: 254-256.
• Lee WJ, Smith AD, Cubelli V, Vernace FM: Percutaneo- us nephrolithotomy: analysis of 500 consecutive patients. Urol Radiol 1986; 8:61-6.
• Payne SR, Ford TF, Wickham JEA: Endoscopic manage- ment of upper urinary tract stones. Br J Surg 1985; 72:822- 824.
• Yalçın V, Önder U, Demirkesen O, Önal B, Kalkan M, Kural AR: Böbrek taşlarının tedavisinde perkütan nefroli- totomi. Türk Üroloji Dergisi 2002; 28:194-200.
• Ünsal A, Çimentepe E, Sağlam R: ilk 50 perkütan nefrolito- tomi deneyimimiz. Türk Üroloji Dergisi 2002; 28:422-427.
• Basiri A, Karrami H, Hosseini M: Percutaneous neph- rolithotomy in patients with or without a history of open nephrolithotomy; J Endourol 2003; 17:213-216.
• Wolf JS, Clayman RV: Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: what is the role in 1997 ?. Urol Clin N Am 1997; 24:43-58.
• Segura JW, Patterson DE, LeRoy AJ: Percutaneous remo- val of kidney stones. Review of 1000 cases. J Urol 1985; 134: 1077-1081.
• Seitz C, Desai M, Häcker A: Incidence, prevention, and management of complications following percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Eur Urol 2012; 61:146-58.
• Vallanicien G, Capdeville R, Viellon B, Charton M, Bris- sel JM: Colonic perforation during percutaneous nephros- tomy. J Urol 1985; 134:1185-1187.
• Hopper KD, Yakes WF: The posterior intercostal appro- ach for percutaneous renal procedures: Risk of puncturing the lung, spleen and liver as determined by CT: AJR 1990
• Skolarikos A, Alivizatos G, de la Rosette JJMCH: Per- cutaneous nephrolithotomy and its legacy. Eur Urol 2005; 47:22-28.