Comparision of a new portable wireless ultrasound and a traditional wired ultrasound in puncture guiding of percutaneous nephrolithotomy

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2019.03.002

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To compare the safety and effectiveness of the new portable wireless ultrasound and traditional wired ultrasound in puncture guiding of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

Methods

Retrospective analysis was performed on 84 cases of unilateral renal calculus with hydronephrosis treated with PCNL in Huizhou Central Hospital from Nov 2017 to Jan 2019. Thirty nine patients (experimental group) were guided by the new portable wireless ultrasound, and 45 patients (control group) were guided by a traditional wired ultrasound. Both groups of surgery were performed by the same group of urologists.

Results

There were no significant statistical differences in base data between the two groups (all P>0.05). All the operations were completed successfully. And no patient was converted to open surgery, without complications such as thoracic or intestinal damage. There were no significant statistical differences in puncture guidance time, puncture depth, operation time, bleeding volume, calculus clearing rate, postoperative hospitalization days between the two groups (all P>0.05).

Conclusion

The new portable wireless ultrasound is safe and effective for renal calculus with hydronephrosis in PCNL, and it can achieve the similar effect of the traditional wired ultrasound, which is convenient to use and has certain clinical value.

Key words: Renal calculus, PCNL, Wireless ultrasound, Puncture

Maozhang Li, Tengcheng Li, Jie Situ, Jiahong Chen, Jinxian Liao, Xinghao Li, Sijie Lin, Youqiang Fang. Comparision of a new portable wireless ultrasound and a traditional wired ultrasound in puncture guiding of percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(03): 149-152.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2019.03.002

https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2019/V13/I03/149

Figures/Tables 2

References 15

[1]	Zumstein V, Betschart P, Abt D, et al. Surgicalmanagement of urolithiasis-a systematic analysis of available guidelines[J]. BMC Urol， 2018, 18(1): 25-32.
[2]	Fernstrom I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique[J]. Scand J Urol Nephrol, 1976, 10(3): 257-259.
[3]	Chu C, Masic S, Usawachintachit M, et al. Ultrasound-guided renal access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a description of three novel ultrasound-guided needle techniques[J]. J Endourol, 2016, 30(2): 153-158.
[4]	Wang Y, Jiang F, Hou Y, et al. Doppler ultrasound and X-ray-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy with one-step balloon dilation for complex renal stones[J]. Urol Int, 2013, 91(3): 326-330.
[5]	Alan C, Kocoglu H, Ates F, et al. Ultrasound-guided X-ray free percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of simple stones in the flank position[J]. Urol Res, 2011, 39(3): 205-212.
[6]	Usawachintachit M, Tzou D T, Hu W, et al. X-ray-free ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy: how to select the right patient?[J]. Urology, 2017, 100(3): 38-44.
[7]	Li X, Long Q, Chen X, et al. Real-time ultrasound-guided PCNL using a novel SonixGPS needle tracking system[J]. Urolithiasis, 2014, 42(4): 341-346.
[8]	Cho MK, Noh EJ, Kim CH. Accuracy and precision of a new portable ultrasound scanner, the Biocon-700, in residual urine volume measurement[J]. Int Urogynecol J, 2016(3): 1057-1061.
[9]	Hsiao W, Lian F, Goodgame B, et al. Breakage of needle during intracavernosal injection and use of portable ultrasound guidance for removal[J]. Case Rep Urol, 2013(6): 1-3.
[10]	陈延雄，司徒杰，狄金明, 等. 便携式无线超声在经皮肾镜术中的初步应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版). 2017, 11(3): 42-45.
[11]	Ghani K R, Sammon J D, Bhojani N, et al. Trends in percutaneous nephrolithotomy use and outcomes in the United States[J]. J Urol, 2013, 190(2): 558-564.
[12]	Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S, et al. Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study[J]. J Endourol, 2004, 18(8): 715-722.
[13]	Fang YQ, Wu JY, Li TC, et al. Computer tomography urography assisted real-time ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy on renal calculus[J]. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017, 96(24): 7215-7221.
[14]	Xu C, Feng S, Lin C, Zheng Y. Reducing postoperative morbidity of mini-invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Would it help if blood vessels are left unharmed during puncture? A CONSORT-prospective randomized trial[J]. Medicine(Baltimore), 2018, 97(47): 13314-13319.
[15]	湛海伦，杨飞，李腾成, 等. 肾上盏入路经皮肾镜取石术的手术技巧及安全性分析[J/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2013, 7(3): 39-42.

?	例数	年龄（岁，±s）	性别（例）		BMI（kg/m²，±s）	患肾位置（例）		结石负荷[cm²，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]	肾积水程度[cm，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]	穿刺引导时间[min，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]
?	例数	年龄（岁，±s）	男	女	BMI（kg/m²，±s）	左	右	结石负荷[cm²，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]	肾积水程度[cm，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]	穿刺引导时间[min，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]
实验组	39	50±12	21	18	24.4±3.5	14	25	2.73(1.80, 3.42)	3.20(2.60, 4.4)	4.5(4.2, 5.5)
对照组	45	51±11	26	19	23.4±3.8	21	24	2.86(2.10, 4.48)	0.3.6(3.05, 530)	4.7(4.0, 6.2)
统计值	?	t=-0.245	χ²=0.131		t=1.213	χ²=0.997		Z=-1.153	Z=-1.939	Z=-0.611
P值	?	-0.807	0.717		0.228	0.318		-0.249	-0.053	-0.541
?	例数	穿刺深度[cm，（±s）]	手术时间[min，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]	完全结石清除率[例，（%）]	Hb下降水平[g/dl，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]	术后住院时间[d，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]	出血（例）	发热(≥38.5℃)（例）	冲洗液外渗（例）
实验组	39	6.7±0.3	75 (45, 85)	34 (87.2)	0.90(0.40, 1.30)	7(6, 8)	1	3	1
对照组	45	6.8±0.4	66 (42, 81)	38 (84.4)	0.70(0.40, 1.60)	7(6, 8)	1	2	2
统计值	?	t=-0.093	Z=-1.666	χ²=0.128	Z=-0.675	Z=-0.489	-	-	-
P值	?	-0.926	-0.096	0.721	-0.500	0.625	1.000	1.000	1.000

?	例数	年龄（岁，±s）	性别（例）		BMI（kg/m²，±s）	患肾位置（例）		结石负荷[cm²，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]	肾积水程度[cm，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]	穿刺引导时间[min，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]
?	例数	年龄（岁，±s）	男	女	BMI（kg/m²，±s）	左	右	结石负荷[cm²，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]	肾积水程度[cm，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]	穿刺引导时间[min，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]
实验组	39	50±12	21	18	24.4±3.5	14	25	2.73(1.80, 3.42)	3.20(2.60, 4.4)	4.5(4.2, 5.5)
对照组	45	51±11	26	19	23.4±3.8	21	24	2.86(2.10, 4.48)	0.3.6(3.05, 530)	4.7(4.0, 6.2)
统计值	?	t=-0.245	χ²=0.131		t=1.213	χ²=0.997		Z=-1.153	Z=-1.939	Z=-0.611
P值	?	-0.807	0.717		0.228	0.318		-0.249	-0.053	-0.541
?	例数	穿刺深度[cm，（±s）]	手术时间[min，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]	完全结石清除率[例，（%）]	Hb下降水平[g/dl，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]	术后住院时间[d，（Q₂₅，Q₇₅）]	出血（例）	发热(≥38.5℃)（例）	冲洗液外渗（例）
实验组	39	6.7±0.3	75 (45, 85)	34 (87.2)	0.90(0.40, 1.30)	7(6, 8)	1	3	1
对照组	45	6.8±0.4	66 (42, 81)	38 (84.4)	0.70(0.40, 1.60)	7(6, 8)	1	2	2
统计值	?	t=-0.093	Z=-1.666	χ²=0.128	Z=-0.675	Z=-0.489	-	-	-
P值	?	-0.926	-0.096	0.721	-0.500	0.625	1.000	1.000	1.000

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export