Cover Image

Comparison of efficacy of laser lithotripter with ultrasonic lithotripter in mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Fatih Akbulut, Onur Kucuktopcu, Emre Kandemir, Erkan Sonmezay, Abdulmuttalip Simsek, Burak Ucpinar, Faruk Ozgor, Gokhan Gurbuz
  • Fatih Akbulut
    Department of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey | drfakbulut@hotmail.com
  • Onur Kucuktopcu
    Department of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Emre Kandemir
    Department of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Erkan Sonmezay
    Department of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Abdulmuttalip Simsek
    Department of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Burak Ucpinar
    Department of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Faruk Ozgor
    Department of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Gokhan Gurbuz
    Department of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of the laser lithotripter with the ultrasonic lithotripter in mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (miniperc). Material and Methods: From June 2013 to January 2014; medical records of 77 consecutive patients who underwent miniperc operation were retrospectively evaluated. Ultrasonic lithotripter was used in 22 patients (Group 1), while laser was used in 55 patients. In the laser group, 22 patients were randomly selected who had same characteristics compared to group 1 (Group 2). Success rate, total operative time, complications according to modified Clavien classification, fluoroscopy time, haemoglobin drop, hospital stays and cost analysis were assessed. Success rates were evaluated on the second postoperative day and after the first month. Results: Total operative time (p = 0.635) and fluoroscopy time (p = 0.248) were not significantly different between the two groups. In the laser group, the success rate (81.8%) was notably more than in the ultrasonic lithotripter group (68.2%) but there was no statistically significance (p = 0.296). Ten reusable ultrasonic probe were used for 22 patients, due to thinness and sensitiveness of the probe. Conversely, one single laser fiber (550 micron) was used for 22 patients. When the cost analysis of lithotripsy was considered, the cost per case was 190 dollar in group 1 and 124 dollar in group 2. (p = 0.154) Complication rate, hospital stay and haemoglobin drop were similar in both groups. Conclusion: Laser lithotripsy seems to be more cost effective than ultrasonic lithotripsy for miniperc but larger number of patients are required to confirm this estimation.

Keywords

Laser lithotripsy; Ultrasonic lithotripsy; Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Full Text:

PDF
Submitted: 2016-01-12 10:31:54
Published: 2016-01-14 10:50:44
Search for citations in Google Scholar
Related articles: Google Scholar
Abstract views:
1210

Views:
PDF
1370

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM


Copyright (c) 2016 Fatih Akbulut, Onur Kucuktopcu, Emre Kandemir, Erkan Sonmezay, Abdulmuttalip Simsek, Burak Ucpinar, Faruk Ozgor, Gokhan Gurbuz

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
 
© PAGEPress 2008-2018     -     PAGEPress is a registered trademark property of PAGEPress srl, Italy.     -     VAT: IT02125780185