Salvage Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Analysis of Outcomes Following Initial Treatment Failure

dc.contributor.authorBorofsky, Michael S.
dc.contributor.authorWollin, Daniel A.
dc.contributor.authorReddy, Thanmaya
dc.contributor.authorShah, Ojas
dc.contributor.authorAssimos, Dean G.
dc.contributor.authorLingeman, James E.
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Urology, IU School of Medicineen_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-11-02T16:05:50Z
dc.date.available2016-11-02T16:05:50Z
dc.date.issued2016-04
dc.description.abstractPurpose Percutaneous nephrolithotomy has high potential for morbidity or failure. There are limited data regarding risk factors for failure and to our knowledge no published reports of surgical outcomes in patients with prior failed attempts at percutaneous stone removal. Materials and Methods We identified patients referred to 3 medical centers after prior failed attempts at percutaneous nephrolithotomy. A retrospective chart review was performed to analyze reasons for initial failure and outcomes of salvage percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Outcomes were compared to those in a prospectively maintained database of more than 1,200 patients treated with a primary procedure. Results Salvage percutaneous nephrolithotomy was performed in 31 patients. Unsuitable access to the stone was the reason for failure in 80% of cases. Other reasons included infection, bleeding and inadequate instrument availability in 6.5% of cases each. Compared to patients who underwent primary percutaneous nephrolithotomy those treated with salvage were more likely to have staghorn calculi (61.3% vs 31.4%, p <0.01) and a larger maximum stone diameter (3.7 vs 2.5 cm, p <0.01), and require a secondary procedure (65.5% vs 42.1%, p <0.01). There was no significant difference between the cohorts in the remaining demographics or perioperative outcomes. All patients were deemed completely stone free except one who elected observation for a 3 mm nonobstructing fragment. Conclusions Despite the more challenging nature and prior unsuccessful attempts at treatment, the outcomes of salvage percutaneous nephrolithotomy were no different from those of primary percutaneous nephrolithotomy when performed by experienced surgeons.en_US
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.citationBorofsky, M. S., Wollin, D. A., Reddy, T., Shah, O., Assimos, D. G., & Lingeman, J. E. (2016). Salvage Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Analysis of Outcomes following Initial Treatment Failure. The Journal of Urology, 195(4, Part 1), 977–981. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.10.176en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/11318
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1016/j.juro.2015.10.176en_US
dc.relation.journalThe Journal of Urologyen_US
dc.rightsPublisher Policyen_US
dc.sourceAuthoren_US
dc.subjectkidneyen_US
dc.subjectnephrolithiasisen_US
dc.subjectnephrostomyen_US
dc.titleSalvage Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Analysis of Outcomes Following Initial Treatment Failureen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Borofsky_2016_salvage.pdf
Size:
153.57 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.88 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: