Research Article

Methylene blue-guided retroperitoneoscopy technique: alternative for percutaneous nephrolithotomy in cases with renal access failure

Volume: 17 Number: 3 October 27, 2022
EN TR

Methylene blue-guided retroperitoneoscopy technique: alternative for percutaneous nephrolithotomy in cases with renal access failure

Abstract

Objective: To present our ‘methylene blue-guided retroperitoneoscopy technique’ that we apply in cases where extravasation develops for various reasons and is complicated as a result in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy surgery (PNL).
Material and Methods: A total of 36 patients, who underwent PNL with the ‘methylene blue technique’ at Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital between 2014 and 2020, were retrospectively evaluated. The study included only cases in which the ‘methylene blue-guided retroperitoneoscopy technique’ was used due to the inability to advance the Amplatz sheath to the targeted calyx due to renal scarring or a staghorn stone filling the targeted calyx, Amplatz sheath was withdrawn from the kidney with the guidewire due to the inattention of the assistant surgical team or contrast material extravasation. The patients’ demographic, preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data were recorded, and stone-free and complication rates were noted.
Results: The mean age of the patients was 45.1 (36-55) years, the mean body mass index was 27.8±4 kg/m2, the mean stone size was 3.4±0.7 cm, and the mean stone volume was 22.3±10.2 cm3. The mean operation time was calculated as 95.8±30.3 minutes. The stone-free rate was 68% on the postoperative first day and 75% on the third month. Eight patients (22.2%) underwent a secondary procedure (extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or flexible ureterorenoscopy).
Conclusion: The ‘methylene blue-guided retroperitoneoscopy technique’ we apply under retroperitoneoscopic direct vision is a safe and practical option for re-accessing the kidney by locating the calyx, which is first partially or completely dilated.

Keywords

References

  1. Fernstrom I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976; 10(3):257–9. DOI: 10.1080/21681805.1976.11882084.
  2. Peng P-X, Lai S-C, Seery S, He Y-H, Zhao H, Wang X-M, et al. Balloon versus Amplatz for tract dilation in fluoroscopically guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2020; 10(7):035943. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035943.
  3. Giannakopoulos S, Bantis A, Kalaitzis C, Touloupidis S. Use of an angiographic catheter to facilitate fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous renal access in cases with diffuse contrast extravasation. J Endourol. 2010; 24(10):1575–8. DOI: 10.1089/end.2010.0019.
  4. Tiselius H-G, Andersson A. Stone burden in an average Swedish population of stone formers requiring active stone removal: how can the stone size be estimated in the clinical routine? Eur Urol. 2003; 43(3):275–81. DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00006-x.
  5. Thomas K, Smith NC, Hegarty N, Glass JM. The Guy’s stone score--grading the complexity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures. Urology. 2011; 78(2):277–81. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.12.026.
  6. Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K, Sari E, Berberoglu Y, Baykal M, et al. Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol. 2008; 53(1):184–90. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.06.049.
  7. Kim SC, Kuo RL, Lingeman JE. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update. Curr Opin Urol. 2003; 13(3):235–41. DOI: 10.1097/00042307-200305000-00012.
  8. Desai M. Ultrasonography-guided punctures-with and without puncture guide. J Endourol. 2009; 23(10):1641–3. DOI: 10.1089/end.2009.1530.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Urology

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

October 27, 2022

Submission Date

May 10, 2022

Acceptance Date

October 12, 2022

Published in Issue

Year 2022 Volume: 17 Number: 3

APA
Karadağ, S., & Ekşi, M. (2022). Methylene blue-guided retroperitoneoscopy technique: alternative for percutaneous nephrolithotomy in cases with renal access failure. Yeni Üroloji Dergisi, 17(3), 173-179. https://doi.org/10.33719/yud.2022;17-3-1114575
AMA
1.Karadağ S, Ekşi M. Methylene blue-guided retroperitoneoscopy technique: alternative for percutaneous nephrolithotomy in cases with renal access failure. New J Urol. 2022;17(3):173-179. doi:10.33719/yud.2022;17-3-1114575
Chicago
Karadağ, Serdar, and Mithat Ekşi. 2022. “Methylene Blue-Guided Retroperitoneoscopy Technique: Alternative for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Cases With Renal Access Failure”. Yeni Üroloji Dergisi 17 (3): 173-79. https://doi.org/10.33719/yud.2022;17-3-1114575.
EndNote
Karadağ S, Ekşi M (October 1, 2022) Methylene blue-guided retroperitoneoscopy technique: alternative for percutaneous nephrolithotomy in cases with renal access failure. Yeni Üroloji Dergisi 17 3 173–179.
IEEE
[1]S. Karadağ and M. Ekşi, “Methylene blue-guided retroperitoneoscopy technique: alternative for percutaneous nephrolithotomy in cases with renal access failure”, New J Urol., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 173–179, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.33719/yud.2022;17-3-1114575.
ISNAD
Karadağ, Serdar - Ekşi, Mithat. “Methylene Blue-Guided Retroperitoneoscopy Technique: Alternative for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Cases With Renal Access Failure”. Yeni Üroloji Dergisi 17/3 (October 1, 2022): 173-179. https://doi.org/10.33719/yud.2022;17-3-1114575.
JAMA
1.Karadağ S, Ekşi M. Methylene blue-guided retroperitoneoscopy technique: alternative for percutaneous nephrolithotomy in cases with renal access failure. New J Urol. 2022;17:173–179.
MLA
Karadağ, Serdar, and Mithat Ekşi. “Methylene Blue-Guided Retroperitoneoscopy Technique: Alternative for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Cases With Renal Access Failure”. Yeni Üroloji Dergisi, vol. 17, no. 3, Oct. 2022, pp. 173-9, doi:10.33719/yud.2022;17-3-1114575.
Vancouver
1.Serdar Karadağ, Mithat Ekşi. Methylene blue-guided retroperitoneoscopy technique: alternative for percutaneous nephrolithotomy in cases with renal access failure. New J Urol. 2022 Oct. 1;17(3):173-9. doi:10.33719/yud.2022;17-3-1114575