{"title":"两种不同的肾道扩张技术在经皮肾镜取石术中的比较:安铂与球囊。","authors":"Güven Erbay, Ahmet Şanlı","doi":"10.1007/s00240-025-01800-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the Amplatz dilation (AD) and balloon dilation (BD) techniques for tract dilation during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). We retrospectively reviewed medical records of clinical data from 345 patients who underwent PCNL at the Urology Clinic of Karaman Training and Research Hospital from February 2021 to January 2025. AD was used in 119 patients and BD was used in 171 patients. Hemoglobin decrease, blood transfusion rate, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decrease, total operation time, hospital stay, fluoroscopy time, nephrostomy removal time, success rate and complications were compared between the two groups. Similar baseline characteristics were observed in the two groups. Compared to the BD group, the operation time (40 m vs. 54 m, p = 0.002), fluoroscopy time (150 s vs. 265 s, p < 0.001) and hospital stay (4 day vs. 5 day, p = 0.009) were significantly higher in the AD group. Hemoglobin decrease (1.8 g/dl vs. 1.0 g/dl, p: 0.012) and blood transfusion rate (15.1% vs. 8.7%, p:0.036) were observed higher in the AD group than in the BD group. Additionally success rate rate was higher for BD group than Amplatz group (90.35% vs. 84.62%, p:0.015). The complication rates based on Clavien classification such as urine leakage, renal function alteration and renal pelvic perforation were similar in two groups with no significant difference. Only bleeding and blood transfusion requirement were observed to be statistically significantly higher in the AD group (14.2% vs. 8.7%, p:0.042). BD appears to be a faster, more effective, safer and superior dilatation technique than AD, whereas BD was significantly more expensive than AD. Further confirmatory research is necessary to confirm and validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":23411,"journal":{"name":"Urolithiasis","volume":"53 1","pages":"123"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of two different tract dilatation techniques in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Amplatz versus balloon.\",\"authors\":\"Güven Erbay, Ahmet Şanlı\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00240-025-01800-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the Amplatz dilation (AD) and balloon dilation (BD) techniques for tract dilation during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). We retrospectively reviewed medical records of clinical data from 345 patients who underwent PCNL at the Urology Clinic of Karaman Training and Research Hospital from February 2021 to January 2025. AD was used in 119 patients and BD was used in 171 patients. Hemoglobin decrease, blood transfusion rate, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decrease, total operation time, hospital stay, fluoroscopy time, nephrostomy removal time, success rate and complications were compared between the two groups. Similar baseline characteristics were observed in the two groups. Compared to the BD group, the operation time (40 m vs. 54 m, p = 0.002), fluoroscopy time (150 s vs. 265 s, p < 0.001) and hospital stay (4 day vs. 5 day, p = 0.009) were significantly higher in the AD group. Hemoglobin decrease (1.8 g/dl vs. 1.0 g/dl, p: 0.012) and blood transfusion rate (15.1% vs. 8.7%, p:0.036) were observed higher in the AD group than in the BD group. Additionally success rate rate was higher for BD group than Amplatz group (90.35% vs. 84.62%, p:0.015). The complication rates based on Clavien classification such as urine leakage, renal function alteration and renal pelvic perforation were similar in two groups with no significant difference. Only bleeding and blood transfusion requirement were observed to be statistically significantly higher in the AD group (14.2% vs. 8.7%, p:0.042). BD appears to be a faster, more effective, safer and superior dilatation technique than AD, whereas BD was significantly more expensive than AD. Further confirmatory research is necessary to confirm and validate these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urolithiasis\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"123\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urolithiasis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-025-01800-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urolithiasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-025-01800-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本研究的目的是比较Amplatz扩张(AD)和球囊扩张(BD)技术在经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)中进行尿路扩张的有效性和安全性。我们回顾性回顾了2021年2月至2025年1月在卡拉曼培训与研究医院泌尿外科诊所接受PCNL的345例患者的临床资料。119例患者采用AD, 171例患者采用BD。比较两组患者血红蛋白下降、输血率、肾小球滤过率(GFR)下降、总手术时间、住院时间、透视时间、肾造口术取出时间、成功率及并发症。在两组中观察到相似的基线特征。与BD组相比,手术时间(40 m vs. 54 m, p = 0.002),透视时间(150 s vs. 265 s, p = 0.002)
Comparison of two different tract dilatation techniques in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Amplatz versus balloon.
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the Amplatz dilation (AD) and balloon dilation (BD) techniques for tract dilation during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). We retrospectively reviewed medical records of clinical data from 345 patients who underwent PCNL at the Urology Clinic of Karaman Training and Research Hospital from February 2021 to January 2025. AD was used in 119 patients and BD was used in 171 patients. Hemoglobin decrease, blood transfusion rate, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decrease, total operation time, hospital stay, fluoroscopy time, nephrostomy removal time, success rate and complications were compared between the two groups. Similar baseline characteristics were observed in the two groups. Compared to the BD group, the operation time (40 m vs. 54 m, p = 0.002), fluoroscopy time (150 s vs. 265 s, p < 0.001) and hospital stay (4 day vs. 5 day, p = 0.009) were significantly higher in the AD group. Hemoglobin decrease (1.8 g/dl vs. 1.0 g/dl, p: 0.012) and blood transfusion rate (15.1% vs. 8.7%, p:0.036) were observed higher in the AD group than in the BD group. Additionally success rate rate was higher for BD group than Amplatz group (90.35% vs. 84.62%, p:0.015). The complication rates based on Clavien classification such as urine leakage, renal function alteration and renal pelvic perforation were similar in two groups with no significant difference. Only bleeding and blood transfusion requirement were observed to be statistically significantly higher in the AD group (14.2% vs. 8.7%, p:0.042). BD appears to be a faster, more effective, safer and superior dilatation technique than AD, whereas BD was significantly more expensive than AD. Further confirmatory research is necessary to confirm and validate these findings.
期刊介绍:
Official Journal of the International Urolithiasis Society
The journal aims to publish original articles in the fields of clinical and experimental investigation only within the sphere of urolithiasis and its related areas of research. The journal covers all aspects of urolithiasis research including the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathogenesis, genetics, clinical biochemistry, open and non-invasive surgical intervention, nephrological investigation, chemistry and prophylaxis of the disorder. The Editor welcomes contributions on topics of interest to urologists, nephrologists, radiologists, clinical biochemists, epidemiologists, nutritionists, basic scientists and nurses working in that field.
Contributions may be submitted as full-length articles or as rapid communications in the form of Letters to the Editor. Articles should be original and should contain important new findings from carefully conducted studies designed to produce statistically significant data. Please note that we no longer publish articles classified as Case Reports. Editorials and review articles may be published by invitation from the Editorial Board. All submissions are peer-reviewed. Through an electronic system for the submission and review of manuscripts, the Editor and Associate Editors aim to make publication accessible as quickly as possible to a large number of readers throughout the world.