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

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 we...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Fatih Akbulut, Onur Kucuktopcu, Emre Kandemir, Erkan Sonmezay, Abdulmuttalip Simsek, Burak Ucpinar, Faruk Ozgor, Gokhan Gurbuz
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: PAGEPress Publications 2016-01-01
Series:Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/aiua/article/view/5729
id doaj-39bf98dfae85450a981de55d435af230
record_format Article
spelling doaj-39bf98dfae85450a981de55d435af2302020-11-25T02:55:16ZengPAGEPress PublicationsArchivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia1124-35622282-41972016-01-0187427627910.4081/aiua.2015.4.2764582Comparison of efficacy of laser lithotripter with ultrasonic lithotripter in mini percutaneous nephrolithotomyFatih Akbulut0Onur Kucuktopcu1Emre Kandemir2Erkan Sonmezay3Abdulmuttalip Simsek4Burak Ucpinar5Faruk Ozgor6Gokhan Gurbuz7Department of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, IstanbulDepartment of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, IstanbulDepartment of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, IstanbulDepartment of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, IstanbulDepartment of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, IstanbulDepartment of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, IstanbulDepartment of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, IstanbulDepartment of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, IstanbulObjective: 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.http://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/aiua/article/view/5729Laser lithotripsyUltrasonic lithotripsyMini percutaneous nephrolithotomy
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Fatih Akbulut
Onur Kucuktopcu
Emre Kandemir
Erkan Sonmezay
Abdulmuttalip Simsek
Burak Ucpinar
Faruk Ozgor
Gokhan Gurbuz
spellingShingle Fatih Akbulut
Onur Kucuktopcu
Emre Kandemir
Erkan Sonmezay
Abdulmuttalip Simsek
Burak Ucpinar
Faruk Ozgor
Gokhan Gurbuz
Comparison of efficacy of laser lithotripter with ultrasonic lithotripter in mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia
Laser lithotripsy
Ultrasonic lithotripsy
Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy
author_facet Fatih Akbulut
Onur Kucuktopcu
Emre Kandemir
Erkan Sonmezay
Abdulmuttalip Simsek
Burak Ucpinar
Faruk Ozgor
Gokhan Gurbuz
author_sort Fatih Akbulut
title Comparison of efficacy of laser lithotripter with ultrasonic lithotripter in mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy
title_short Comparison of efficacy of laser lithotripter with ultrasonic lithotripter in mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy
title_full Comparison of efficacy of laser lithotripter with ultrasonic lithotripter in mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy
title_fullStr Comparison of efficacy of laser lithotripter with ultrasonic lithotripter in mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of efficacy of laser lithotripter with ultrasonic lithotripter in mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy
title_sort comparison of efficacy of laser lithotripter with ultrasonic lithotripter in mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy
publisher PAGEPress Publications
series Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia
issn 1124-3562
2282-4197
publishDate 2016-01-01
description 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.
topic Laser lithotripsy
Ultrasonic lithotripsy
Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy
url http://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/aiua/article/view/5729
work_keys_str_mv AT fatihakbulut comparisonofefficacyoflaserlithotripterwithultrasoniclithotripterinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT onurkucuktopcu comparisonofefficacyoflaserlithotripterwithultrasoniclithotripterinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT emrekandemir comparisonofefficacyoflaserlithotripterwithultrasoniclithotripterinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT erkansonmezay comparisonofefficacyoflaserlithotripterwithultrasoniclithotripterinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT abdulmuttalipsimsek comparisonofefficacyoflaserlithotripterwithultrasoniclithotripterinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT burakucpinar comparisonofefficacyoflaserlithotripterwithultrasoniclithotripterinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT farukozgor comparisonofefficacyoflaserlithotripterwithultrasoniclithotripterinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
AT gokhangurbuz comparisonofefficacyoflaserlithotripterwithultrasoniclithotripterinminipercutaneousnephrolithotomy
_version_ 1724717011336953856