Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Balloon Dilation Versus Gradual Dilation in Patients with Obesity Undergoing Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Ubeyd Sungur, Taner Kargı, Alican Çatik, Yusuf Arıkan, Alper Bitkin, Ali İhsan Taşçı
{"title":"Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Balloon Dilation Versus Gradual Dilation in Patients with Obesity Undergoing Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.","authors":"Ubeyd Sungur, Taner Kargı, Alican Çatik, Yusuf Arıkan, Alper Bitkin, Ali İhsan Taşçı","doi":"10.1177/10926429251359731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of gradual dilatation (GD) and balloon dilatation (BD) in supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) in patients with obesity. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The study was performed on 164 patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m<sup>2</sup> who underwent supine PNL in the Galdakao-modified Valdivia position. Sixty patients who underwent tract creation with BD were defined as Group 1, and 104 patients who underwent tract creation with GD were defined as Group 2. Demographic characteristics, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were compared between the two groups. Then, binary logistic regression analysis was performed to predict stone-free status and complications, and parameters predicting success and safety were investigated. <b><i>Results:</i></b> There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding stone-free status, transfusion rate, and the Clavien-Dindo complication grades. Fluoroscopy time and operation time were significantly lower in Group 1 than in Group 2 (<i>P</i> < .001 and <i>P</i> = .002). When the factors predicting success were analyzed, multiple stones and staghorn stones were associated with lower success in multivariate analysis. Long operation times were found to be significant in predicting the development of complications in multivariate analysis. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> BD and GD have similar success and complication rates as dilatation methods in patients with obesity. BD method may provide less X-ray exposure with shorter fluoroscopy and operation time, but both methods can be used safely in supine PNL in patients with obesity.</p>","PeriodicalId":50166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10926429251359731","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of gradual dilatation (GD) and balloon dilatation (BD) in supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) in patients with obesity. Methods: The study was performed on 164 patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 who underwent supine PNL in the Galdakao-modified Valdivia position. Sixty patients who underwent tract creation with BD were defined as Group 1, and 104 patients who underwent tract creation with GD were defined as Group 2. Demographic characteristics, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were compared between the two groups. Then, binary logistic regression analysis was performed to predict stone-free status and complications, and parameters predicting success and safety were investigated. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding stone-free status, transfusion rate, and the Clavien-Dindo complication grades. Fluoroscopy time and operation time were significantly lower in Group 1 than in Group 2 (P < .001 and P = .002). When the factors predicting success were analyzed, multiple stones and staghorn stones were associated with lower success in multivariate analysis. Long operation times were found to be significant in predicting the development of complications in multivariate analysis. Conclusions: BD and GD have similar success and complication rates as dilatation methods in patients with obesity. BD method may provide less X-ray exposure with shorter fluoroscopy and operation time, but both methods can be used safely in supine PNL in patients with obesity.

肥胖患者仰卧位经皮肾镜取石术球囊扩张与渐进式扩张的疗效和安全性比较。
前言:我们的目的是比较渐进式扩张(GD)和球囊扩张(BD)在肥胖患者仰卧经皮肾镜取石(PNL)中的安全性和有效性。方法:164例体重指数(BMI)≥30 kg/m2的患者采用Galdakao-modified Valdivia体位进行仰卧PNL。60例伴有BD的患者被定义为第一组,104例伴有GD的患者被定义为第二组。比较两组患者的人口学特征、术前、术中及术后数据。然后进行二元logistic回归分析,预测结石清除状态和并发症,并研究预测成功和安全的参数。结果:两组在无结石状态、输血率和Clavien-Dindo并发症分级方面无统计学差异。组1透视时间和手术时间明显低于组2 (P < 0.001和P = 0.002)。当对预测成功的因素进行分析时,在多变量分析中,多发结石和鹿角结石与较低的成功率相关。在多变量分析中发现,长手术时间对预测并发症的发生具有重要意义。结论:BD和GD治疗肥胖患者的成功率和并发症发生率与扩张术相似。BD法x线暴露少,透视时间短,手术时间短,但两种方法均可安全用于肥胖患者仰卧位PNL。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
163
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques (JLAST) is the leading international peer-reviewed journal for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest thinking and advanced surgical technologies in laparoscopy, endoscopy, NOTES, and robotics. The Journal is ideally suited to surgeons who are early adopters of new technology and techniques. Recognizing that many new technologies and techniques have significant overlap with several surgical specialties, JLAST is the first journal to focus on these topics both in general and pediatric surgery, and includes other surgical subspecialties such as: urology, gynecologic surgery, thoracic surgery, and more.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信