[THE OPERATIVE AND POSTOPERATIVE RESULTS OF PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY FOR THE ELDERLY IN COMPARISON TO A YOUNGER POPULATION].

Harefuah Pub Date : 2025-09-01
Alex Blinzovski, Ilan Klein, Omer Ephrat, Yoram Dekel
{"title":"[THE OPERATIVE AND POSTOPERATIVE RESULTS OF PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY FOR THE ELDERLY IN COMPARISON TO A YOUNGER POPULATION].","authors":"Alex Blinzovski, Ilan Klein, Omer Ephrat, Yoram Dekel","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Kidney stone disease is very common in the western world and combined with the aging of the population, it brings about the need to treat older patients with numerous comorbidities. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the standard of care for patients with stones 2 cm and above but is more invasive. Thus, with the elderly patient comes the dilemma: whether to choose the percutaneous path or to proceed with ureteroscopy even at the cost of several procedures in order to complete the task at hand. Recent developments also added the choice of smaller working channels and the options of choosing a standard channel (30f) and faster surgery or using a miniaturized one perhaps with slower surgery with possible side effects.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To estimate the efficacy and safety of a standardized PCNL in the elderly population in comparison to younger patients undergoing the same procedure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single center retrospective study was conducted of all the patients who underwent a standardized PCNL for kidney stones during the years 2019-2023. All demographical and clinical data were gathered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study population included 81 patients, of whom 18 (22%) were in their seventies and 63 (78%) were under 70 years of age. As expected, the older group had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and a higher ASA score (p=0.003, p<0.001 respectively). The diameter of the largest stone was 2.2 cm with no differences between the two groups (p=0.995), nor in stone number, location volume or density. Procedure time, hemoglobin level and kidney function after surgery were similar. Residual stone fragments per non-contrast CT a day after the procedure did not differ between the groups (a median size of 2 mm in the younger group vs. 1.5 mm). The elderly group spent more time in the hospital (5 days vs. 4, p=0.023), but there were no differences in complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A standardized PCNL can be performed safely and effectively in the elderly without significant differences in comparison to younger patients. Chronological age alone should not take the percutaneous option off the table for an elder with a large kidney stone.</p>","PeriodicalId":101459,"journal":{"name":"Harefuah","volume":"164 8","pages":"492-496"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harefuah","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Kidney stone disease is very common in the western world and combined with the aging of the population, it brings about the need to treat older patients with numerous comorbidities. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the standard of care for patients with stones 2 cm and above but is more invasive. Thus, with the elderly patient comes the dilemma: whether to choose the percutaneous path or to proceed with ureteroscopy even at the cost of several procedures in order to complete the task at hand. Recent developments also added the choice of smaller working channels and the options of choosing a standard channel (30f) and faster surgery or using a miniaturized one perhaps with slower surgery with possible side effects.

Aims: To estimate the efficacy and safety of a standardized PCNL in the elderly population in comparison to younger patients undergoing the same procedure.

Methods: A single center retrospective study was conducted of all the patients who underwent a standardized PCNL for kidney stones during the years 2019-2023. All demographical and clinical data were gathered.

Results: The study population included 81 patients, of whom 18 (22%) were in their seventies and 63 (78%) were under 70 years of age. As expected, the older group had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and a higher ASA score (p=0.003, p<0.001 respectively). The diameter of the largest stone was 2.2 cm with no differences between the two groups (p=0.995), nor in stone number, location volume or density. Procedure time, hemoglobin level and kidney function after surgery were similar. Residual stone fragments per non-contrast CT a day after the procedure did not differ between the groups (a median size of 2 mm in the younger group vs. 1.5 mm). The elderly group spent more time in the hospital (5 days vs. 4, p=0.023), but there were no differences in complications.

Conclusions: A standardized PCNL can be performed safely and effectively in the elderly without significant differences in comparison to younger patients. Chronological age alone should not take the percutaneous option off the table for an elder with a large kidney stone.

[老年人经皮肾镜取石术的手术和术后结果与年轻人的比较]。
导言:肾结石疾病在西方世界非常普遍,加上人口老龄化,导致老年患者需要治疗许多合并症。经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)是结石2厘米及以上患者的标准治疗方法,但其侵入性更大。因此,老年患者面临着两难的选择:是选择经皮路径,还是继续进行输尿管镜检查,即使牺牲了几个程序,以完成手头的任务。最近的发展也增加了更小的工作通道的选择,选择标准通道(30f)和更快的手术,或者使用小型化的通道,可能手术更慢,可能有副作用。目的:评估标准化PCNL在老年人群中的疗效和安全性,并与接受相同手术的年轻患者进行比较。方法:对2019-2023年间接受肾结石标准化PCNL检查的所有患者进行单中心回顾性研究。收集了所有的人口学和临床数据。结果:研究人群包括81例患者,其中18例(22%)为70多岁,63例(78%)为70岁以下。正如预期的那样,老年组的Charlson合病指数和ASA评分更高(p=0.003)。结论:标准化PCNL在老年人中可以安全有效地进行,与年轻患者相比无显著差异。对于有较大肾结石的老年人,不应仅凭实足年龄就放弃经皮穿刺的选择。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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