Skip to content
IJCBR|ISSN: 2521-0394
Log in
IJ
IJCBR
Original Research ArticlesPeer-reviewedOpen Access · CC BY 4.0

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LITHOTRIPSY AND MINIPERC IN 11 TO 18 MM IMPACTED PUJ CALCULI

Narendra Wankhade1, Atul Khalkar2, Suhas Ghule Ghule3, Hemant Naik4

  1. 1 Consultant Urologist, Wankhade Kidney Hospital, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India (corresponding author)
  2. 2 Professor, Department of Surgery, DVVPF’s Medical College, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India
  3. 3 Consultant Radiologist, Wankhade Kidney Hospital, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India
  4. 4 Consultant paediatric Surgeon, Wankhade Kidney Hospital, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra

DOI: 10.31878/ijcbr.2018.43.07 · Published 2018-07-31 · pp. 30-34

Download PDF

Abstract

Background: Impacted PUJ calculi are well known entity.  Nephrolithiasis is a common disorder that accounts for significant cost, morbidity, and loss of work. Over last 3 decades considerable advances have been made in the management of kidney stone disease, still there is no single universally accepted and uniformly effective modality of treatment in medium size of impacted PUJ calculi. Aim: To study the efficacy of lithotripsy and MINIPERC in 11mm to 18mm impacted PUJ calculi. Methodology: The patients with impacted PUJ calculi of size 11 to 18mm of both sexes of all age group varying form 18-60 years, on consecutive sampling method total 84 patients were included. All patients underwent basic lab investigations, USG, IVU and investigations for fitness purpose. Group 1: All procedures were tubeless.  We used 15 Fr Richard Wolf nephroscope for the procedure. 16 to 20 Fr Amplatz sheath was used depending upon situation. Fragmentation was performed using pneumatic lithoclast or holmium Laser depending upon stone size and characteristics. Group 2: Underwent DJ stenting under subarachnoid block or short GA depending upon situation. On the next day they were subjected for lithotripsy on Dorniel alpha machine under USG guidance, 3000 shocks were given in each sitting. One to three such sittings were given. Post operatively ultrasonography and X-ray KUB was done in all the patients and stents were removed after assuring complete clearance. Patients with absence of stone or presence of stone less than 4 mm on USG or x-ray KUB were declared as completely cleared. Results: Average hospital stay was 48 hours in miniperc group and it was 30 hours in DJ with ESWL group. Clearance rate was 100 % in Miniperc group and it was 85.71 % in DJ with ESWL group. Five patients (11.9%) in DJ lithotripsy group required another procedure. (Two needed miniperc and three needed URS). Two(4.76 %) patients in miniperc group had fever in post op period but nobody suffered major sepsis. Conclusion: Miniperc fulfils many criteria if we see results and complications. Although bigger sized multicentric study and long term follow up is needed.

References

  1. Sangtate Park, Margaret SP. Pathophysiology and management of calcium stones. Urol, Clin N Am. 2007;34:323-334. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ravindra B. Sabnis, JitendraJagtap, Shashikant Mishra, Mahesh Desai. Treating renal calculi1–2 cm in diameter with minipercutaneous or retrograde intrarenal surgery: a prospective comparative study BJU International. 2011;108(7):160. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. Nicole LM, Andrews PE, James EL. Pathogenesis of renal calculi. Urol, Clin N Am. 2007;34:295-313. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. Paramjit SC. Evaluation of the recent stone former. Urol, Clin N Am. 2007;34:315-322. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Naeem Bhojani, James EL. Shockwave lithotripsy- New concepts and optimizing treatment parameters. Urol Clin N Am. 2013;40:59-66. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. AbdulkadirTepeler, Abdullah Armagan, Ahmet Ali Sancaktutar. Role of microperc in the treatment of symotomatic LPC calculi. J.endourology. 2013;27(1):10 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Rajiv Goel, Monish Aron, Pawan K. Kesarwani. Percutaneous Antegrade Removal of Impacted Upper-Ureteral Calculi: Still the Treatment of Choice in Developing Countries. Journal of Endourology. 2005;19(1):54-57 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mohammed S. Al-Marhoon,Omar Shareef, Ismail S. Al-Habs. Extracorporeal Shock-wave Lithotripsy Success Rate and Complications: Initial Experience at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital Oman Med J. 2013;28(4): 255–259. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. Sven Lahmea, Karl-Horst Bichler , Walter Ludwig Strohmaier , Tobias Gotz. Minimally Invasive PCNL in Patients with Renal Pelvic and Calyceal Stones. Eur Urol. 2001;40:619–624 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. Berkan Resorlu, Cengiz Kara and Ali Unsal. Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard pnl for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU International. 2011;108(7):160 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  11. Omar M. Aboumarzouk, ManojMonga, Slawomir G. Kata.Flexible Ureteroscopy and Laser Lithotripsy for Stones >2 cm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Endourology. 2012, 26(10): 1257-1263 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. Nikolaos Ferakis and Marios Stavropoulos.Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal and upper ureteral stones: Lessons learned from a review of the literatureUrol Ann. 2015 7(2): 141–148. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. Aneeshshivastva and SaurabhChipale. Management of 1-2 cm renal stones. Indian J Urol. 2013; 29(3): 195–199. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kamal Moufid, Najib Abbaka, Driss Touiti. Large impacted upper ureteral calculi: A comparative study between retrograde ureterolithotripsy and percutaneous antegradeureterolithotripsy in the modified lateral position. Urology annals. 2013;5(3):140-146. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]