| Autor: |
Xiaobo Ding, Yuchuan Hou, Chunxi Wang, Yanbo Wang |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2023 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
BJUI Compass, Vol 4, Iss 5, Pp 562-567 (2023) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
2688-4526 |
| DOI: |
10.1002/bco2.219 |
| Popis: |
Abstract Objectives The objectives of this work are to compare the outcomes between loach guidewire and super‐stiff guidewire during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and find potential indications of different guidewires. Patients and methods We retrospectively reviewed our institutional PCNL database from 2017 to 2021. Patients who underwent PCNL guided by loach guidewire were assigned to group A (489 patients); patients who received super‐stiff guidewire were assigned to group B (269 patients). Preoperative demographic data, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative complications were compared. The conditions and reasons of failed placement of guidewire needed readjustment were evaluated as well. Results Preoperative demographic data and most intraoperative parameters were not statistically different between the groups. Postoperative Clavien–Dindo complications were also comparable, with low rate of complications. However, failed placement of guidewire more occurred in group A (8.2% vs. 4.0%, respectively, p = 0.03). Compared with the super‐stiff guidewire, the loach guidewire was easier pass/slip into any place either it be perinephric or blood vessels. In most failed group A cases and all failed group B cases, the guidewire was placed in the perirenal fat. Six patients (15%) in group A, the guidewires entered into vessels. Conclusions Our results support that the faulty placement of loach guidewire is significantly more common compared with super‐stiff guidewire. Double confirmation is needed to prevent a major complication out of wrong dilatation whenever there is doubt about the wrong location of the guidewire. |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Plný text