Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with solitary kidney: A critical outcome analysis

20Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: To describe our experience with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in patients with solitary kidneys and analyze factors that can impact on intra-operative bleeding and postoperative complications. Materials and Methods: We reviewed our stone database searching for patients with solitary kidney who underwent PCNL from Jan-05 through Oct-13. Demographic data, stone characteristics, and intra- and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Spearman correlation was performed to assess which variables could impact on bleeding and surgical complications. Linear and logistic regressions were also performed. Results: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled in this study. The mean age and BMI were 45.6 years and 28.8Kg/m2, respectively; 45% of cases were classified as Guys 3 (partial staghorn or multiple stones) or 4 (complete staghorn) - complex cases. Stone- -free rate was 67%. Eight (29.6%) patients had postoperative complications (five of them were Clavien 2 and three were Clavien 3). On univariate analysis only number of tracts was associated with increased bleeding (p=0.033) and only operative time was associated with a higher complication rate (p=0.044). Linear regression confirmed number of access tracts as significantly related to bleeding (6.3, 95%CI 2.2-10.4; p=0.005), whereas logistic regression showed no correlation between variables in study and complications. Conclusions: PCNL in solitary kidneys provides a good stone-free rate with a low rate of significant complications. Multiple access tracts are associated with increased bleeding.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Torricelli, F. C. M., Padovani, G. P., Marchini, G. S., Vicentini, F. C., Danilovic, A., Reis, S. T., … Mazzucchi, E. (2015). Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with solitary kidney: A critical outcome analysis. International Braz J Urol, 41(3), 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.0343

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free