- Browse by Subject
Browsing by Subject "Percutaneous nephrolithotomy"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Comparison of cost-effectiveness and postoperative outcomes following integration of a stiff shaft glidewire into percutaneous nephrolithotripsy(Sage, 2021-08-22) Valadon, Crystal; Abedali, Zain A.; Nottingham, Charles U.; Large, Tim; Krambeck, Amy E.; Urology, School of MedicineAims: To analyze the cost effectiveness of integrating a stiff shaft glidewire (SSGW) in percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) relative to standard technique (ST). This is prudent because healthcare providers are experiencing increased pressure to improve procedure-related cost containment. Methods: ST for PCNL at our institution involves a hydrophilic glidewire during initial percutaneous access and then two new stiff shaft wires. The SSGW is a hydrophilic wire used for initial access and the remainder of the procedure. We collected operating room (OR) costs for all primary, unilateral PCNL cases over a 5-month period during which ST for PCNL was used at a single institution with a single surgeon and compared with a 6-month period during which a SSGW was used. Mean costs for each period were then compared along with stone-free rates and complications. Results: We included 17 total cases in the ST group and 22 in the SSGW group. The average operating room supply cost for the ST group was $1937.32 and $1559.39 in the SSGW group. The net difference of $377.93 represents a nearly 20% decrease in cost. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.031). There was no difference in postoperative stone-free rates (82.4% versus 86.4%, p = 1.0, respectively) or complications (23.5% versus 13.6%, p = 0.677, respectively) between ST and SSGW groups. Conclusion: Transitioning to a SSGW has reduced OR supply cost by reducing the number of supplies required. The change in wire did not affect stone-free rates or complications.Item Getting Out of a PCCL: Percutaneous Cholecystolithotomy as a Salvage Treatment Option for Gallstone Removal in Patients Deemed Unfit for Standard Surgical Approaches(Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., 2016-02-01) Calaway, Adam C.; Borofsky, Michael S.; Dauw, Casey A.; Lingeman, James E.; Department of Urology, IU School of MedicineDefinitive management of acute cholecystitis or symptomatic cholelithiasis in exceedingly high-risk patients remains a clinical dilemma. In certain cases, treatment through a percutaneous approach following standard techniques and principles similar to those of percutaneous nephrolithotomy may be considered. However, one potential challenge, particularly among a high-risk population, is the possible necessity to stay on obligate anticoagulation for pre-existing medical reasons. To date, there have been no prior reports documenting the role of this procedure in patients on systemic anticoagulation, particularly clopidogrel. Here we report a case of a percutaneous cholecystolithotomy performed on an elderly patient unable to stop dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel) secondary to recent drug eluting stent placement for myocardial infarction.Item Multi-Institutional Prospective Randomized Control Trial of Novel Intracorporeal Lithotripters: ShockPulse-SE vs Trilogy Trial(Mary Ann Liebert, 2021-11) Large, Tim; Nottingham, Charles; Brinkman, Ethan; Agarwal, Deepak; Ferrero, Andrea; Sourial, Michael; Stern, Karen; Rivera, Marcelino; Knudsen, Bodo; Humphreys, Mitchel; Krambeck, Amy; Urology, School of MedicineIntroduction: Currently, there are multiple intracorporeal lithotripters available for use in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of two novel lithotripters: Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective multi-institutional randomized trial comparing outcomes of PCNL using two novel lithotripters between February 2019 and June 2020. The study assessed objective measures of stone clearance time, stone clearance rate, device malfunction, stone-free rates, and complications. Device assessment was provided through immediate postoperative survey by primary surgeons. Results: There were 100 standard PCNLs completed using either a Trilogy or ShockPulse-SE lithotrite. Using quantitative Stone Analysis Software to estimate stone volume, the mean stone volume was calculated at 4.18 ± 4.79 and 3.86 ± 3.43 cm3 for the Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE groups, respectively. Stone clearance rates were found to be 1.22 ± 1.67 and 0.77 ± 0.68 cm3/min for Trilogy vs ShockPulse-SE (p = 0.0542). When comparing Trilogy to ShockPulse-SE in a multivariate analysis, total operative room time (104.4 ± 48.2 minutes vs 121.1 ± 59.2 minutes p = 0.126), rates of secondary procedures (17.65% vs 40.81%, p = 0.005), and device malfunctions (1.96% vs 34.69%, p < 0.001) were less, respectively. There was no difference in final stone-free rates between devices. Conclusion: Both the Trilogy and ShockPulse-SE lithotripters are highly efficient at removing large renal stones. In this study, we noted differences between the two devices including fewer device malfunctions when Trilogy device was utilized.