Introduction
Staghorn calculus are large and branching kidney stones that occupy a large proportion of the renal pelvis and some or all of the renal calices. Surgical treatment of staghorn calculi involves complete stone removal minimising morbidity. Because untreated staghorn calculus have a tendency to destroy the kidney and cause life-threatening urosepsis, the American Urological Association (AUA) recommends to actively treat all newly diagnosed patients1,2. In patients with staghorn calculi who are treated conservatively, the mortality rates have been reported to range around 28% to 47.5%3–6. It is crucial to completely remove all staghorn calculi, because residual stones can form nuclei for stone recurrence (85% recurrence rate) that may lead to infection7.
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has become the recommended treatment for staghorn calculi as it has stone-free rate three times higher than extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and has lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, shorter operating time, and time to return to work faster than open surgery1,8. Nevertheless, the management of staghorn calculi with PCNL remains challenging. Stone-free rates were lower, complications more frequent, and operative time and hospital stay were longer in patients with staghorn stones compared to nonstaghorn stones9.
However, PCNL is still the mainstay treatment for staghorn calculi, despite the complete removal of staghorn calculi by PCNL being a high skill-demanding surgical procedure and a challenging task for urologists. In this study, we evaluated the stone-free rate and the factors that influence the effectiveness of primary PCNL performed in our national tertiary referral hospital.
Methods
Patients
From January 2000 to December 2015, the data from 345 patients with staghorn calculi who had undergone PCNL surgery at the Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital by one of two surgeons (NR and PB) were reviewed. NR did PCNL surgery since 2000 until now, while PB did PCNL surgery since 2009 until now. This study included both and made no distinction between partial and complete staghorn calculi. Patients who were eligible for the study were adult patients (≥ 18 years old) and those who had PCNL for primary treatment for nephrolithiasis who agreed to enroll by written informed consent. The patients meeting the below criteria were excluded: 1) Patients who had systemic hemorrhagic disease without correction; 2) Patients with severe heart disease and pulmonary incompetence who could not undertake the operation; 3) Uncontrolled diabetes and hypertension patients as well as tuberculosis patients; 4) Patients with renal anatomic malformations, such as horse-shoe and ectopic kidneys, with coexisting staghorn calculi; 5) Lordosis or scoliosis patient who could not tolerate the prone position; 6) Patients who had history of ipsilateral PCNL for secondary or tertiary PCNL. The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia (No.513/UN2.F1/ETIK/2016).
Preoperative preparation
Preoperative laboratory examination undertaken included urinalysis, urine culture, serum creatinine, and complete peripheral blood. Plain abdominal radiography of kidneys, ureters, and bladder (KUB) and intravenous urography (IVU) were the primary radiological investigations. Non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) was performed for patients with high serum creatinine (>1,6 mg/dL) or those allergic to iodinated contrast. Stone burden was assessed pre-operatively by multiplying sum of length and width by means of imaging. Patients with urinary tract infections treated with antibiotics appropriate preoperative urine culture 5 days prior to PCNL. Other patients who had negative urine cultures receiving intravenous antibiotics prior to anesthesia.
Surgical technique
Following anesthesia, patients were placed in lithotomy position and a 22.5F rigid cystoscope (OLYMPUS) was used to pass a 5F open-end ureteral catheter (Selectip, 62450200; Angiomed, Bard, Murray Hill, NJ) under fluoroscopic guidance, into the renal pelvis, to allow injection of contrast material to delianeate the intrarenal collecting system. A 16F Foley catheter was inserted into the bladder to provide drainage during the procedure and the ureteral catheter was fixed to the Foley catheter. Then the patient was moved to prone position and the side of kidneys to be operated was positioned higher 30°. Percutaneous puncture to gain access to the kidney was done with the help of C-arm control fluoroscopy. Calyx puncture was performed through a superior, media, or inferior, using 18-gauge, diamond-tip needle (Cook Urological, Spencer IN). The needle was positioned so that the target puncture, the needle tip, and the base of the needle was in a position in line. The depth of puncture was controlled using fluoroscopy in the anteroposterior position. After the needle of puncture had been confirmed in the pelvicalyceal system, then a 0.038 guidewire was inserted. After that, the tract was then dilated to 30F using metal dilators (Telescope Bougie Set, 27290A, Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany), fascial dilator and malleable dilators (Amplatz Renal Dilator Set, 075000, Cook Urological, Spencer IN). After inspection by 24-F rigid nephroscope (HOPKINS Wide-Angle Straight Forward Telescope 6°, 27293 AA, Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany), mechanical lithotripsy (Vibrolith, Elmed, Orlando, FL) could be done by breaking the stone. Stone forceps were used to take a hard rock fragments.
Post operative evaluation
Postoperative imaging were performed 1 or 2 days after PCNL with either Kidney Ureter Bladder (KUB) photos, computed tomography (CT) scan, or antegrade pyelography (APG). Stone-free is defined as the absence of residual stones after undergoing PCNL for the first time. Patients who required additional treatment after their first PCNL, such as secondary PCNL and or ESWL, were automatically excluded from the stone-free group. We also evaluated the transfusion rate and the incidence of postoperative complications, such as infection, urine leakage on operative wounds, intestinal perforation, and bleeding.
Data analysis
Bivariate analysis was performed by correlating the numerical variables with stone free rates. Those with P value <0.25 were further analyzed with multivariate analysis of logistic regression. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 17 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). The analysis considered significant when P <0.05.
Results
From January 2000 to December 2015, a total of 345 patients with staghorn calculi had undergone primary PCNL procedures at the Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital. The mean patient age was 52.23±10.38 years. The stone-free rate of PCNL monotherapy was 62.6%. This value was the result just after the 1st stage of PCNL. The mean operating time was 79.55±34.46 minutes. The mean length of stay in hospital was 4.29±3.00 days. Perioperative transfusions were performed in 11% of patients (Table 1).
Table 1. Patient characteristics.
Variable | Mean ± SD or no. (%) cases |
---|
No. patients | 345 |
Age (year) | 52.23±10.38 |
Stone burden (mm2) | 51.85±23.54 |
Body mass index < 25 kg/m2 25.29.9 kg/m2 ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 185 (53.6) 98 (28.4) 62 (18.0) |
History of ipsilateral renal stone open surgery | 85 (24.6) |
Calyx target for PCNL access Inferior calyx Other than inferior calyx | 312 (90.4) 33 (9.6) |
Amount of PCNL access Single Multiple | 333 (96.5) 12 (3.5) |
Anesthesia Spinal General | 281 (81.4) 64 (18.6) |
Nephrostomy tube usage Large tube Small tube Tubeless | 56 (16.2) 183 (53.0) 106 (30.7) |
Stone-free PCNL | 216 (62.6) |
Operative time (minute) | 79.55±34.46 |
Length of hospital stay (days) | 4.29±3.00 |
Perioperative transfusion | 38 (11.0) |
Complications Infection Urine leakage at the operative wound Intestinal perforation Bleeding | 1 (0.3) 3 (0.9) 1 (0.3) 17 (4.9) |
From the univariate analysis, there was significant association between history of ipsilateral renal stone open surgery, stone burden, and type of anesthesia with the stone-free rate (p = 0.01; p < 0.001; p = 0.04, respectively). The univariate analyses are illustrated in Table 2. Stepwise multivariate regression analysis which included variables with p-value < 0.25 showed that the stone burden was the most influential predictor of stone-free (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.18–0.45, p=0.00) (Table 3).
Table 2. Univariate analysis of factors that associated with the stone-free rate.
Variable | Stone-free rate (%) | P |
---|
| Stone-free | Residual stone | |
---|
Sex Male Female | 58.8 41.2 | 64.3 35.7 | 0.31*
|
Age < 65 years ≥ 65 years | 87.0 13.0 | 88.4 11.6 | 0.72*
|
Body mass index < 25 kg/m2 25–29.9 kg/m2 ≥30 kg/m2 | 50.9 29.6 19.4 | 58.1 26.4 15.5 | 0.40*
|
Stone burden ≤ 52 mm2 > 52 mm2 | 69.9 30.1 | 41.1 58.9 | 0.00*
|
History of ipsilateral renal stone open surgery Yes No |
20.4 79.6 |
31.8 68.2 |
0.01*
|
Calys target for PCNL access Inferior calyx Other calyx | 91.2 9.8 | 89.1 10.9 | 0.53*
|
Number of PCNL access Single Multiple | 98.1 1.9 | 93.8 6.2 | 0.26**
|
Kidney morphology No hydronephrosis Hydronephrosis | 44.4 55.6 | 41.9 58.1 | 0.64*
|
Anestesia General Spinal | 16.2 83.8 | 22.5 77.5 | 0.15*
|
Table 3. Multivariate analysis (logistic regression model) of factors independently predictive of stone-free rate.
Step | Preoperative factor | Coefficient | p value | OR (CI 95%) |
---|
Step 1 | History of ipsilateral open renal stone surgery No (reference) Yes | -0.741 | 0.01 | 0.48 (0.28–0.80) |
Stone burden ≤ 52 mm (reference) > 52 mm | -1.246 | 0.00 | 0.29 (0.18–0.46) |
Anesthesia General (reference) Spinal | -0.263 | 0.37 | 1.30 (0.73–2.33) |
Step 2 | History of ipsilateral open renal stone surgery No (reference) Yes | -0.738 | 0.01 | 0.48 (0.28–0.81) |
Stone burden ≤ 52 mm (reference) > 52 mm | -1.267 | 0.00 | 0.28 (0.18–0.45) |
Patient Number | Sex | Age range (years) | Stone burden (mm2) | Body mass index (kg/m2) | Kidney morphology | History of ipsilateral renal stone open surgery | Calyx target for PCNL access | Amount of PCNL access | Anesthesia | Nephrostomy tube usage | Stone-free | Operative time (minute) | Length of hospital stay (days) | Perioperative transfusion | Complications |
---|
1 | male | 31-50 | 65 | 30.11 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 45 | 7 | no | no |
2 | male | 31-50 | 93 | 19.05 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 170 | 7 | no | no |
3 | male | 31-50 | 93 | 24.22 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 95 | 7 | no | no |
4 | female | 31-50 | 59 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 150 | 11 | no | no |
5 | male | 51-70 | 76 | 20.03 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 60 | 7 | yes | no |
6 | male | 31-50 | 70 | 25.22 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | large tube | yes | 120 | 12 | no | no |
7 | female | 18-30 | 64 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | general | small tube | no | 180 | 3 | no | no |
8 | male | 31-50 | 30 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 90 | 6 | no | no |
9 | male | 31-50 | 35 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 120 | 6 | no | no |
10 | female | 31-50 | 40 | 31.25 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 160 | 4 | no | no |
11 | female | 51-70 | 56 | 28.52 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 210 | 15 | yes | bleeding |
12 | female | 51-70 | 73 | 25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | tubeless | yes | 210 | 31 | yes | bleeding |
13 | male | 51-70 | 36 | 27.06 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 60 | 6 | yes | bleeding |
14 | male | 51-70 | 56 | 25.39 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 120 | 6 | no | no |
15 | female | 51-70 | 55 | 20.28 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 120 | 4 | no | no |
16 | male | 31-50 | 41 | 30.11 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | large tube | yes | 60 | 4 | no | no |
17 | male | 31-50 | 65 | 19.05 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 60 | 4 | no | no |
18 | male | 31-50 | 64 | 24.22 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 120 | 4 | no | no |
19 | male | 31-50 | 43 | 31.25 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 80 | 8 | no | no |
20 | male | 31-50 | 64 | 20.03 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 120 | 3 | no | no |
21 | male | 31-50 | 45 | 25.22 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 90 | 3 | no | urine leakage at the operative wound |
22 | male | 31-50 | 46 | 31.25 | No hydronephrosis | no | other than inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 90 | 4 | no | no |
23 | male | 31-50 | 55 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 90 | 6 | no | no |
24 | male | 51-70 | 50 | 31.25 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 75 | 5 | no | no |
25 | female | 51-70 | 42 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 120 | 3 | no | no |
26 | male | 31-50 | 60 | 28.52 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | large tube | no | 120 | 7 | no | no |
27 | female | 31-50 | 68 | 25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | small tube | no | 90 | 5 | no | no |
28 | male | 51-70 | 47 | 27.06 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 120 | 2 | no | no |
29 | female | 51-70 | 22 | 25.39 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 120 | 7 | no | no |
30 | male | 31-50 | 100 | 20.28 | hydronephrosis | yes | other than inferior | multiple | spinal | large tube | no | 120 | 4 | no | no |
31 | female | 51-70 | 27 | 30.11 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | large tube | yes | 60 | 6 | no | no |
32 | male | 51-70 | 80 | 19.05 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | large tube | no | 60 | 5 | no | no |
33 | female | 51-70 | 67 | 24.22 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | large tube | yes | 60 | 4 | no | no |
34 | female | 18-30 | 70 | 19.11 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | small tube | no | 120 | 12 | no | intestinal perforation |
35 | male | 31-50 | 60 | 31.59 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 105 | 7 | no | no |
36 | female | 31-50 | 57 | 30.11 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | small tube | yes | 70 | 5 | no | no |
37 | male | 51-70 | 40 | 19.05 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | general | small tube | no | 60 | 3 | no | no |
38 | male | 51-70 | 32 | 24.22 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | general | small tube | yes | 30 | 2 | no | no |
39 | male | ? 71 | 40 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | small tube | yes | 90 | 4 | no | no |
40 | male | 31-50 | 56 | 20.03 | hydronephrosis | no | other than inferior | single | general | small tube | no | 90 | 6 | no | no |
41 | male | 31-50 | 45 | 25.22 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 45 | 4 | no | no |
42 | male | 31-50 | 55 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | large tube | yes | 60 | 2 | no | no |
43 | male | 51-70 | 56 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 90 | 5 | no | no |
44 | female | 51-70 | 47 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 60 | 4 | no | no |
45 | female | 51-70 | 38 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 2 | no | no |
46 | female | 51-70 | 60 | 28.52 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 5 | no | no |
47 | female | 31-50 | 60 | 25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 90 | 3 | no | bleeding |
48 | male | 31-50 | 83 | 27.06 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 90 | 4 | no | no |
49 | male | 31-50 | 76 | 25.39 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 75 | 4 | no | no |
50 | male | 31-50 | 40 | 20.28 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 120 | 5 | no | no |
51 | male | 31-50 | 35 | 30.11 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | general | small tube | yes | 60 | 4 | no | no |
52 | male | 51-70 | 54 | 19.05 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | general | small tube | yes | 90 | 4 | no | no |
53 | male | 51-70 | 54 | 24.22 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | small tube | yes | 90 | 3 | no | no |
54 | female | 51-70 | 71 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | small tube | yes | 60 | 3 | yes | bleeding |
55 | male | 51-70 | 29 | 20.03 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 40 | 7 | no | no |
56 | female | 51-70 | 70 | 25.22 | hydronephrosis | no | other than inferior | multiple | general | small tube | no | 60 | 3 | yes | bleeding |
57 | male | 51-70 | 58 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | small tube | yes | 90 | 3 | no | no |
58 | female | 18-30 | 52 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 120 | 6 | no | no |
59 | male | 31-50 | 70 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | yes | other than inferior | multiple | spinal | small tube | no | 90 | 4 | no | no |
60 | female | 31-50 | 40 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 4 | yes | no |
61 | male | 51-70 | 42 | 28.52 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 70 | 6 | no | no |
62 | male | 51-70 | 45 | 25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 45 | 5 | no | no |
63 | female | 51-70 | 32 | 27.06 | hydronephrosis | yes | other than inferior | multiple | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 4 | no | no |
64 | male | 51-70 | 38 | 25.39 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 80 | 5 | no | no |
65 | female | 51-70 | 31 | 20.28 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 10 | no | no |
66 | male | 51-70 | 30 | 30.11 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | large tube | yes | 40 | 2 | no | no |
67 | male | 51-70 | 45 | 19.05 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 40 | 4 | no | no |
68 | female | ? 71 | 50 | 24.22 | hydronephrosis | no | other than inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 90 | 7 | no | no |
69 | male | ? 71 | 32 | 31.25 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 45 | 2 | no | no |
70 | male | 51-70 | 32 | 20.03 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 40 | 7 | no | no |
71 | male | 51-70 | 45 | 25.22 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 60 | 5 | no | no |
72 | male | 51-70 | 51 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | small tube | no | 60 | 2 | no | no |
73 | male | 31-50 | 67 | 31.25 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 90 | 4 | no | no |
74 | male | 31-50 | 55 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 90 | 3 | no | no |
75 | male | 31-50 | 39 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 60 | 5 | no | no |
76 | female | 31-50 | 46 | 28.52 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 45 | 4 | no | no |
77 | male | 51-70 | 43 | 25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 70 | 5 | no | no |
78 | male | 51-70 | 40 | 27.06 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 60 | 2 | no | no |
79 | female | 51-70 | 69 | 25.39 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 120 | 2 | no | no |
80 | male | 51-70 | 81 | 20.28 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 5 | no | no |
81 | male | 51-70 | 30 | 22.86 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 5 | no | no |
82 | male | 51-70 | 40 | 26.45 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 90 | 3 | no | no |
83 | female | 51-70 | 80 | 19.53 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 120 | 2 | no | no |
84 | female | 51-70 | 55 | 17.9 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 2 | no | no |
85 | female | 51-70 | 55 | 19.53 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 2 | no | no |
86 | female | 51-70 | 42 | 17.9 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 65 | 3 | no | no |
87 | female | 51-70 | 75 | 17.9 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 150 | 5 | yes | no |
88 | male | 18-30 | 89 | 20.89 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 60 | 4 | no | no |
89 | female | 31-50 | 49 | 20.89 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 90 | 8 | no | no |
90 | male | 31-50 | 80 | 22.04 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 90 | 6 | no | no |
91 | female | 31-50 | 42 | 20.89 | hydronephrosis | yes | other than inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 60 | 2 | no | no |
92 | female | 31-50 | 35 | 29.43 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 60 | 5 | no | no |
93 | male | 31-50 | 87 | 23.88 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | no | 90 | 4 | no | no |
94 | male | 31-50 | 98 | 23.88 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 90 | 4 | no | no |
95 | male | 31-50 | 75 | 20.89 | No hydronephrosis | no | other than inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 30 | 2 | no | no |
96 | female | 51-70 | 35 | 31.99 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 30 | 3 | no | no |
97 | male | 51-70 | 45 | 25.71 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 60 | 6 | no | urine leakage at the operative wound |
98 | male | 51-70 | 45 | 23.53 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 60 | 2 | no | no |
99 | female | 51-70 | 55 | 25.71 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 60 | 5 | no | no |
100 | male | 31-50 | 25 | 25.71 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 3 | no | no |
101 | male | 31-50 | 40 | 20.2 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 160 | 4 | no | no |
102 | male | 31-50 | 30 | 24.61 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 4 | no | no |
103 | male | 31-50 | 46 | 21.22 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 45 | 4 | no | no |
104 | male | 31-50 | 65 | 30.8 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 60 | 2 | no | no |
105 | male | 31-50 | 42 | 25.71 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 45 | 5 | no | no |
106 | female | 51-70 | 43 | 26.56 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 90 | 3 | no | no |
107 | male | 51-70 | 75 | 21.3 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 45 | 2 | no | no |
108 | male | 51-70 | 43 | 30.42 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | large tube | yes | 90 | 2 | no | no |
109 | male | 51-70 | 64 | 25.71 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 40 | 4 | no | no |
110 | male | 51-70 | 56 | 19.78 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 45 | 2 | no | no |
111 | female | ? 71 | 70 | 21.36 | No hydronephrosis | yes | other than inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 9 | no | infection |
112 | male | ? 71 | 49 | 26.99 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 30 | 2 | no | no |
113 | male | 51-70 | 35 | 25.71 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 180 | 2 | no | no |
114 | male | 31-50 | 23 | 25.71 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | small tube | yes | 45 | 6 | no | no |
115 | male | 51-70 | 20 | 25.71 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | small tube | yes | 100 | 3 | no | no |
116 | female | 51-70 | 20 | 25.71 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | large tube | yes | 80 | 3 | no | no |
117 | male | 18-30 | 15 | 25.71 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 4 | no | no |
118 | male | 31-50 | 55 | 23.72 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 60 | 2 | no | no |
119 | male | 31-50 | 40 | 25.99 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | no | 60 | 4 | no | no |
120 | male | 31-50 | 25 | 23.88 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 2 | no | no |
121 | female | 31-50 | 25 | 20.34 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 150 | 5 | no | no |
122 | male | 31-50 | 80 | 18.37 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | no | 90 | 2 | yes | no |
123 | male | 31-50 | 56 | 13.96 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 180 | 2 | no | no |
124 | female | 31-50 | 45 | 18.37 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 120 | 1 | yes | no |
125 | female | 31-50 | 55 | 21.48 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 2 | yes | no |
126 | male | 31-50 | 35 | 25.95 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 120 | 3 | no | no |
127 | female | 31-50 | 30 | 18.37 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 45 | 3 | no | no |
128 | male | 51-70 | 40 | 18.37 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 150 | 3 | no | no |
129 | male | 51-70 | 52 | 25.39 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 60 | 4 | no | no |
130 | male | 51-70 | 45 | 18.37 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 80 | 2 | no | no |
131 | male | 51-70 | 40 | 18.37 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 90 | 3 | no | no |
132 | male | 51-70 | 40 | 18.37 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | no | 120 | 4 | no | no |
133 | male | 51-70 | 50 | 29.4 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 60 | 5 | no | no |
134 | male | 51-70 | 30 | 21.48 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 13 | no | no |
135 | male | 51-70 | 60 | 25.1 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 2 | no | no |
136 | female | 51-70 | 20 | 18.37 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | large tube | yes | 110 | 8 | yes | no |
137 | female | 51-70 | 66 | 18.37 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 100 | 2 | no | no |
138 | female | 51-70 | 45 | 27.77 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 60 | 3 | no | no |
139 | male | ? 71 | 51 | 20.03 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 60 | 5 | no | no |
140 | female | 31-50 | 75 | 18.37 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 120 | 5 | yes | no |
141 | male | 31-50 | 53 | 27.55 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 60 | 2 | no | no |
142 | male | 51-70 | 38 | 18.37 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 60 | 3 | no | no |
143 | male | 51-70 | 63 | 18.37 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 60 | 2 | no | no |
144 | male | 51-70 | 30 | 18.37 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 120 | 4 | no | no |
145 | male | 51-70 | 68 | 19.83 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 120 | 6 | no | no |
146 | male | 51-70 | 62 | 30.49 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 120 | 4 | no | no |
147 | female | 31-50 | 42 | 22.22 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 60 | 13 | no | no |
148 | female | 31-50 | 26 | 22.22 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 5 | no | no |
149 | male | 51-70 | 43 | 30.49 | No hydronephrosis | no | other than inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 60 | 2 | no | no |
150 | male | 31-50 | 35 | 30.49 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | general | tubeless | yes | 60 | 2 | no | no |
151 | female | 31-50 | 40 | 22.5 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 4 | no | no |
152 | male | 31-50 | 37 | 24.77 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 70 | 2 | no | no |
153 | female | 31-50 | 67 | 30.47 | hydronephrosis | no | other than inferior | multiple | spinal | small tube | no | 90 | 3 | no | no |
154 | male | 31-50 | 30 | 32.08 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 3 | no | no |
155 | female | 31-50 | 54 | 18.37 | hydronephrosis | no | other than inferior | multiple | spinal | small tube | no | 120 | 6 | no | no |
156 | female | 31-50 | 60 | 30.49 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 4 | no | no |
157 | male | 31-50 | 70 | 24.77 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 90 | 3 | no | no |
158 | male | 31-50 | 35 | 30.49 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 4 | no | no |
159 | male | 31-50 | 55 | 31.22 | hydronephrosis | no | other than inferior | multiple | spinal | tubeless | no | 60 | 3 | no | no |
160 | male | 31-50 | 49 | 29.05 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 60 | 2 | no | no |
161 | female | 31-50 | 50 | 34.38 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 5 | yes | no |
162 | male | 31-50 | 25 | 23.44 | hydronephrosis | no | other than inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 40 | 3 | no | no |
163 | female | 31-50 | 60 | 23.44 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 60 | 3 | no | no |
164 | female | 31-50 | 85 | 30.11 | hydronephrosis | no | other than inferior | multiple | spinal | small tube | yes | 80 | 3 | no | no |
165 | male | 31-50 | 56 | 19.05 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | large tube | no | 75 | 11 | yes | no |
166 | male | 31-50 | 75 | 24.22 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 60 | 3 | no | no |
167 | male | 31-50 | 57 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 80 | 7 | no | no |
168 | female | 31-50 | 40 | 20.03 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | no | 50 | 5 | no | no |
169 | female | 31-50 | 30 | 25.22 | No hydronephrosis | no | other than inferior | multiple | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 4 | no | no |
170 | male | 51-70 | 45 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 60 | 3 | no | no |
171 | female | 51-70 | 25 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 3 | no | no |
172 | female | 51-70 | 25 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 4 | no | no |
173 | female | 51-70 | 30 | 31.25 | hydronephrosis | no | other than inferior | multiple | spinal | tubeless | yes | 90 | 5 | no | no |
174 | male | 51-70 | 30 | 28.52 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 45 | 3 | no | no |
175 | female | 51-70 | 54 | 25 | hydronephrosis | yes | other than inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 150 | 4 | no | no |
176 | female | 51-70 | 45 | 27.06 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 5 | no | no |
177 | male | 51-70 | 52 | 25.39 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 5 | no | no |
178 | male | 51-70 | 63 | 20.28 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 40 | 3 | no | no |
179 | female | 51-70 | 20 | 19.36 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 20 | 3 | no | no |
180 | male | 51-70 | 45 | 27.68 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 11 | yes | no |
181 | male | 51-70 | 43 | 21.34 | No hydronephrosis | no | other than inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 50 | 3 | no | no |
182 | male | 51-70 | 50 | 29.4 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 60 | 7 | no | no |
183 | male | 51-70 | 22 | 27.68 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 60 | 7 | no | no |
184 | female | 51-70 | 30 | 27.68 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 80 | 5 | no | no |
185 | male | 51-70 | 30 | 21.48 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 14 | no | no |
186 | male | 51-70 | 50 | 27.68 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | no | 60 | 4 | no | no |
187 | female | 51-70 | 54 | 27.68 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 3 | no | no |
188 | male | 51-70 | 35 | 27.68 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 60 | 16 | no | no |
189 | female | 51-70 | 67 | 19.49 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | no | 60 | 3 | no | no |
190 | female | 51-70 | 55 | 24.97 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 60 | 4 | no | no |
191 | male | 51-70 | 50 | 22.49 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 90 | 5 | yes | no |
192 | female | 51-70 | 70 | 22.22 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | no | 60 | 4 | no | no |
193 | male | 51-70 | 33 | 20.76 | hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 60 | 3 | no | no |
194 | male | 51-70 | 41 | 20.96 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | no | 60 | 3 | no | no |
195 | male | 51-70 | 22 | 23.12 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 50 | 2 | no | no |
196 | male | 51-70 | 50 | 28.13 | hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | spinal | small tube | yes | 80 | 5 | no | no |
197 | male | ? 71 | 45 | 22.09 | No hydronephrosis | no | inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | no | 90 | 4 | no | no |
198 | male | 51-70 | 47 | 19.53 | No hydronephrosis | no | other than inferior | single | spinal | tubeless | yes | 90 | 8 | no | no |
199 | female | 51-70 | 125 | 21.23 | No hydronephrosis | yes | inferior | single | general | tubeless | no | 180 | 3 | no | no |
This is a portion of the data; to view all the data, please download the file. |
Dataset 1.Raw data for Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 of 'Factors affecting stone free rate of primary percutaneous nephrolithotomy on staghorn calculi: a single center experience of 15 years’.
All the raw data used in univariate and multivariate analises are provided.Discussion
Since the introduction of PCNL to treat kidney stones, there has been a rapid development in techniques and instruments that can be used to treat staghorn calculi and complex stone. In 1983, Clayman et al. reported the capability and safety of PCNL in treating staghorn calculi10. Currently, PCNL is the preferred treatment option for patients with staghorn calculi, complex stone, and big stone1,11,12. The goal treatment of staghorn calculi is stone-free thoroughly with minimal morbidity1,11. PCNL in patients with staghorn calculi still represents a procedural challenge, thus requiring the surgeon to perform complete removal of the stone while keeping morbidity to a minimum13.
Stone-free rate after PCNL monotherapy for staghorn calculi is reported to range between 49% to 78%13. In this study, the stone-free rate after PCNL monotherapy was 64.6%. This is higher than the stone-free rate reported by Al - Kohlany et al. (49%)8 because they only considered and treated complete staghorn calculi, whereas in this study we included both patients with partial staghorn calculi and complete staghorn calculi and we made no distinction between partial and complete staghorn calculi. Stone-free rate in our study was not very different from the research conducted by El-Nahas et al.14 (56.6%) and Desai et al.9 (56.9%). They included subject criteria similar to our study, namely the complete and partial staghorn calculi14. However, the stone-free rate of our study was lower than that reported by Soucy et al.13 who reported higher stone-free rate (78%). That study incorporated branched stone in just one calyx (borderline staghorn calculi) found in 67% of their patients, so that the majority of patients had a lower burden stone and were easier to treat13.
The duration of the operation is an important factor in determining and comparing various procedural techniques15, as the duration of anesthesia and the risk of pulmonary complications after surgery can indirectly affect the operation outputs (amount of blood loss, decrease of hemoglobin, and blood transfusion requirements)16,17 and complications18,19 associated with PCNL. The mean length of surgery in this study was 79.55±34.46 minutes with a median value of 60 (range 20–210) minutes. The mean operating time on research conducted by Huang et al.20 was 63.5±11.8 minutes with a range of 29–103 minutes. The duration of operation on that research was shorter because Huang et al. did not use a ureteral catheter or balloon catheter before PCNL. According to Huang et al., direct puncture to the stone without previous insertion of ureteral catheter can be done so as to save operating time and reduce complications15.
Potential significant morbidity or even mortality of PCNL have been reported in a large-scale study16,21,22. Kidney stone management panel of AUA guidelines mentioned that the staghorn calculi have 7–27% complication and transfusion rate reaching 18%1. Previous studies reported that blood transfusion was needed at 14–24% in PCNL with staghorn calculi, depending on the surgical technique, patient population, indications for transfusion, and the opinion of the surgeon to perform transfusion23,24. El-Nahas et al. reported that the staghorn calculi is a risk factor for the occurrence of severe bleeding in PCNL25. The bleeding complications in our study that required transfusion were lower in numbers than previously reported. As shown in Table 1 and Dataset 1, we observed 4.9% of bleeding cases and 11% cases of perioperative transfusion. Total complications observed in our study amounted to 6.4%.
El-Nahas et al.26 found an association between the stone burden (partial and complete staghorn calculi) and secondary calyx stones with a stone-free rate. In our study, no distinction was made between the data entries of complete and partial staghorn calculi but we devided the category of stone burden into two groups, the first group was ≤ 52 mm and the second group was > 52 mm. From our multivariate analysis, we found that the stone burden was associated with the stone-free rate (OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.18-0.45; p 0.00). In our study, we didn’t perform S.T.O.N.E nephrolithometry that was found to be the predictor for stone-free rate after PCNL for staghorn stones27. El-Nahas et al.26 stated that the stone is branched and secondary stones require multiple access or use flexible nephroscopy to achieve stone-free, but sometimes this technique is not enough. The surgeon must determine whether to increase the number of access PCNL to take the entire residual stone or to treat residual stone with ESWL26. The more the number of PCNL access, the higher the incidence of bleeding complications16.
In this study, we found that history of ipsilateral renal stone open surgery was significantly associated with stone-free rate. This is different from the previous study conducted by Kurtulus et al.28 that compared patients who undergone PCNL for the first time with patients who had previous history of open renal stone surgery. In patients who have a history of open renal stone surgery, infundibulum stenosis, perinephric fibrosis, bowel displacement, and incisional hernia are the major factors that should be taken into account by the surgeon29,30. As long as the safety rules are strictly followed, PCNL can still be performed with minimal complication and high success rates despite the technical and access difficulties encountered in secondary or tertiary cases due to anatomic positional differences of the kidney and fibrosis as mentioned by Kurtulus et al.28. In their study, the residual stone rate wasn’t significantly different between patients who had previous history of ipsilateral open renal stone surgery and patients who undergone PCNL for the first time (5% vs 3%, p>0.05). Kurtulus et al. had difficulty in dilating percutaneous tract in patients with history of ipsilateral open renal stone surgery. With the help of newly developed high-pressure balloons, assistance of fascial dilators, or by mechanical dilators, difficulty in establishing access may be overcomed28. In some other studies, it had been reported that open stone surgery can increase PCNL failure rate31, while others showed that previous open stone surgery does not affect PCNL outcome32–34.
The type of anesthesia was not significantly associated with stone-free rate in our multivariate analysis. This finding was in accordance with other studies. Astram et al. compared 220 PCNL procedures using general anesthesia and 540 PCNL using spinal anesthesia. They found the stone-free rate in the general anesthesia group was 71.37%, similar to the spinal anesthesia group 72.97% (p > 0.05)35. Kuzgunbay et al.36 and Tangpaitoon et al.37 also found that combined spinal-regional anesthesia is a feasible technique in PCNL operations because the efficacy and safety were not affected compared to PCNL with general anesthesia. Selection of anesthesia is important because it can affect the patient's postoperative recovery and a consideration for the urologist to discharge a patient from the hospital in a safe condition as soon as possible38. In our study, the majority of PCNL was performed under spinal anesthesia (81.4%) and no conversion from spinal to general anesthesia was recorded. It was found that the use of spinal anesthesia can reduce the need for PCNL postoperative analgetic, decrease nausea39, and the patient can cooperate when operation being held36. General anesthesia on the other hand, may increase complications in PCNL when the patient changes position40. Additionaly, performing PCNL on staghorn calculi under general anesthesia can induce diluted anemia, hypothermia, higher blood loss, as well as the possibility of fluid absorption and electrolyte imbalance38. In short, lower dose of analgesia demand, duration of surgery, well-maintained hemodynamic stability during and after operation with faster patient recovery shows the promising aspect of spinal anesthesia to be virtually used in most PCNL procedures41.
This study bears the common problems of retrospective studies, including selection bias and missing of important clinical data, like partial or complete staghorn stone. The results reported here are different from those published in the study conducted by El-Nahas et al26. They found that independent risk factors for residual stones were complete staghorn calculi and presence of secondary calyceal stones (relative risks were 2.2 and 3.1, respectively). In our study, we didn’t distinct between partial and complete staghorn calculi and this type of analysis could not be done. Besides that, stone free status was a primary endpoint. However, it was evaluated by either plain KUB radiograph, CT scan, or antegrade pyelography. There would be bias on these images since it could probably missed 3–4 mm residual fragment on a plain KUB film. It could be difficult to evaluate stone free status accurately with plain KUB film in an early postoperative period since fluid leakage around the kidney may obscure residual fragments. In addition, the low metabolic evaluation in patients is a weakness of this study because the stone analysis and the metabolic tests are not used routinely on all patients. No follow-up data collection on secondary treatment (such as ESWL, ureterorenoscopy (URS), and secondary PCNL) is also a shortcoming of this study because from those data we ccould analyse the effectiveness of combination therapy with ESWL, secondary PCNL effectiveness rate, and other therapies.
Conclusions
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy is the mainstay for treating staghorn calculi. History of ipsilateral renal stone surgery and stone burden are prognostic factors determining stone clearance after PCNL on staghorn stones.
Data availability
F1000Research: Dataset 1. Raw data for Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 of 'Factors affecting stone free rate of primary percutaneous nephrolithotomy on staghorn calculi: a single center experience of 15 years’, 10.5256/f1000research.9509.d13411742
Consent
Written informed consent to participate in the study and publish clinical data was obtained by the patients.
Abbreviations & acronyms
APG: Antegrade Pyelography
AUA: American Urological Association
ESWL: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy
IVU: Intravenous Urography
KUB: Kidneys, Ureters, and Bladder
NCCT: Non Contrast Computed Tomography
PCNL: Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
URS: Ureterorenoscopy
Author contributions
WA - study concepts, design of study, data acquisition, data interpretation, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation. PB – study concepts, design of study, manuscript review, funds collection. NR - design of study, manuscript review, funds collection. All authors have agreed to publish this final manuscript.
Competing interests
No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information
The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
F1000 recommendedReferences
- 1.
Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE, et al.:
Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations.
J Urol.
2005; 173(6): 1991–2000. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 2.
Healy KA, Ogan K:
Pathophysiology and management of infectious staghorn calculi.
Urol Clin North Am.
2007; 34(3): 363–74. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 3.
Koga S, Arakaki Y, Matsuoka M, et al.:
Staghorn calculi--long-term results of management.
Br J Urol.
1991; 68(2): 122–124. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 4.
Blandy JP, Singh M:
The case for a more aggressive approach to staghorn stones.
J Urol.
1976; 115(5): 505–506. PubMed Abstract
- 5.
Wojewski A, Zajaczkowski T:
The treatment of bilateral staghorn calculi of the kidneys.
Int Urol Nephrol.
1974; 5(3): 249–260. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 6.
Priestley JT, Dunn JH:
Branched renal calculi.
J Urol.
1949; 61(2): 194–203. PubMed Abstract
- 7.
Meng M:
Struvite and staghorn calculi. Emedicine Nov 20, 2015. Accessed: August 22, 2016. Reference Source
- 8.
Al-Kohlany KM, Shokeir AA, Mosbah A, et al.:
Treatment of complete staghorn stones: a prospective randomized comparison of open surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
J Urol.
2005; 173(2): 469–73. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 9.
Desai M, Lisa AD, Turna B, et al.:
The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: staghorn versus nonstaghorn stones.
J Endourol.
2011; 25(8): 1263–1268. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 10.
Clayman RV, Surya V, Miller RP, et al.:
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy. An approach to branched and staghorn renal calculi.
JAMA.
1983; 250(1): 73–5. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 11.
Desai M, Jain P, Ganpule A, et al.:
Developments in technique and technology: the effect on the results of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn calculi.
BJU Int.
2009; 104(4): 542–8; discussion 548. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 12.
Morris DS, Wei JT, Taub DA, et al.:
Temporal trends in the use of percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
J Urol.
2006; 175(5): 1731–6. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 13.
Soucy F, Ko R, Duvdevani M, et al.:
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn calculi: a single center's experience over 15 years.
J Endourol.
2009; 23(10): 1669–73. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 14.
El-Nahas AR, Eraky I, Shokeir AA, et al.:
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treating staghorn stones: 10 years of experience of a tertiary-care centre.
Arab J Urol.
2012; 10(3): 324–329. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- 15.
Falahatkar S, Moghaddam KG, Kazemnezhad E, et al.:
Factors affecting operative time during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: our experience with the complete supine position.
J Endourol.
2011; 25(12): 1831–1836. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 16.
Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S, et al.:
Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Prospective study.
J Endourol.
2004; 18(8): 715–722. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 17.
Akman T, Binbay M, Sari E, et al.:
Factors affecting bleeding during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Single surgeon experience.
J Endourol.
2011; 25(2): 327–333. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 18.
de la Rosette JJ, Zuazu JR, Tsakiris P, et al.:
Prognostic factors and percutaneous nephrolithotomy morbidity: a multivariate analysis of a contemporary series using the Clavien classification.
J Urol.
2008; 180(6): 2489–2493. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 19.
Ozden E, Mercimek MN, Yakupoglu YK, et al.:
Modified Clavien classification in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Assessment of complications in children.
J Urol.
2011; 185(1): 264–268. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 20.
Huang SW, Chang CH, Wang CJ:
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of complete staghorn stones.
JTUA.
2005; 16: 169–173. Reference Source
- 21.
Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ:
Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Eur Urol.
2007; 51(4): 899–906. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 22.
Duvdevani M, Razvi H, Sofer M, et al.:
Third prize: contemporary percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: 1585 procedures in 1338 consecutive patients.
J Endourol.
2007; 21(8): 824–9. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 23.
Koga S, Arakaki Y, Matsuoka M, et al.:
Staghorn calculi--long-term results of management.
Br J Urol.
1991; 68(2): 122–124. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 24.
Stoller ML, Wolf JS Jr, St Lezin MA:
Estimated blood loss and transfusion rates associated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
J Urol.
1994; 152(6 Pt 1): 1977–1981. PubMed Abstract
- 25.
El-Nahas AR, Shokeir AA, El-Assmy AM, et al.:
Post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy extensive hemorrhage. A study of risk factors.
J Urol.
2007; 177(2): 576–9. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 26.
el-Nahas AR, Eraky I, Shokeir AA, et al.:
Factors affecting stone-free rate and complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of staghorn stone.
Urology.
2012; 79(6): 1236–1241. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 27.
Sfoungaristos S, Gofrit ON, Pode D, et al.:
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones: Which nomogram can better predict postoperative outcomes?
World J Urol.
2016; 34(8): 1163–8. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 28.
Kurtulus FO, Fazlioglu A, Tandogdu Z, et al.:
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: primary patients versus patients with history of open renal surgery.
J Endourol.
2008; 22(12): 2671–5. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 29.
Shah HN, Mahajan AP, Hegde SS, et al.:
Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with previous ipsilateral open renal surgery: a feasibility study with review of literature.
J Endourol.
2008; 22(1): 19–24. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 30.
Margel D, Lifshitz DA, Kugel V, et al.:
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients who previously underwent open nephrolithotomy.
J Endourol.
2005; 19(10): 1161–1164. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 31.
Jones DJ, Russell GL, Kellett MJ, et al.:
The changing practice of percutaneous stone surgery. Review of 1000 cases 1981-1988.
Br J Urol.
1990; 66(1): 1–5. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 32.
Basiri A, Karrami H, Moghaddam SM, et al.:
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with or without a history of open nephrolithotomy.
J Endourol.
2003; 17(4): 213–216. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 33.
Sofikerim M, Demirci D, Gülmez I, et al.:
Does previous open nephrolithotomy affect the outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy?
J Endourol.
2007; 21(4): 401–403. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 34.
Reddy SV, Shaik AB:
Outcome and complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy as primary versus secondary procedure for renal calculi.
Int Braz J Urol.
2016; 42(2): 262–269. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- 35.
Astram A, Birowo P, Rasyid N, et al.:
Success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: comparing spinal anesthesia with general anesthesia.
Indonesian Journal of Urology.
2015; 22(2): 5–9. Reference Source
- 36.
Kuzgunbay B, Turunc T, Akin S, et al.:
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy under general versus combined spinal-epidural anesthesia.
J Endourol.
2009; 23(11): 1835–8. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 37.
Tangpaitoon T, Nisoog C, Lojanapiwat B:
Efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective and randomized study comparing regional epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia.
Int Braz J Urol.
2012; 38(4): 504–511. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 38.
Rozentsveig V, Neulander EZ, Roussabrov E, et al.:
Anesthetic considerations during percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
J Clin Anesth.
2007; 19(5): 351–5. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 39.
Andreoni C, Olweny EO, Portis AJ, et al.:
Effect of single-dose subarachnoid spinal anesthesia on pain and recovery after unilateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
J Endourol.
2002; 16(10): 721–725. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- 40.
Basiri A, Mehrabi S, Kianian H:
Blind puncture in comparison with fluoroscopic guidance in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a randomized controlled trial.
Urol J.
2007; 4(2): 79–83; discussion 83–5. PubMed Abstract
- 41.
Movasseghi G, Hassani V, Mohaghegh MR, et al.:
Comparison between spinal and general anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Anesth Pain Med.
2014; 4(1): e13871. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- 42.
Atmoko W, Birowo P, Rasyid N:
Dataset 1 in: Factors Affecting Stone Free Rate of Primary Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy on Staghorn Calculi: A Single Center Experience of 15 Years.
F1000Research.
2016. Data Source
Comments on this article Comments (0)