Search

Tranexamic acid, once a randomly used antifibrinolytic agent, has been in standard protocols for many specific surgeries. Studies are still needed to standardize the dose and route of tranexamic acid administration, examine its possible contributions in urological surgery, and establish a protocol for its use. To contribute to this goal, we designed a prospective, randomized, double-blind study on 75 patients with 1 control and 2 study groups (n = 25) who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Group Tranexamic acid received 10 mg/kg intravenous tranexamic acid preoperatively. And Group Irrigation received the same amount in the initial irrigation fluid. Primarily, we observed the total amount of blood transfusion and the changes in hemoglobin and hematocrit values during 2 postoperative days. Distinctively, we intraoperatively monitored hemoglobin continuously as a saturation hemoglobin value to assess the timing of the effect of tranexamic acid. Secondarily, we questioned surgical visual clarity with a standard visual score to reveal its contribution to surgical practicality, operative time, and residual fragment quantity. Our results revealed a significant difference in the reduction of hemoglobin and hematocrit change and blood transfusion in both tranexamic acid groups concerning control, especially on the second day (p = 0.003, p = 0.002, p = 0.001). Likewise, surgical visual scores were significantly better in both tranexamic acid groups (p = 0.018). In conclusion, intravenous or local administration of tranexamic acid at a dose of 10 mg/kg will be sufficient to maintain perioperative stability in hemoglobin values, use fewer blood products and provide a better visual advantage for the surgeon intraoperatively. The trial registration number is NCT05947435, and the date of registration is 07/07/2023, retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) and standard PNL (sPNL) in a group of patients who had a history of PNL and/or open renal surgery (secondary patients). Materials and Methods: The study included 148 patients who underwent secondary PNL between November 2016 and September 2018. The patients with kidney stone ≥2 cm were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups as mPNL and sPNL. For both groups, demographic data, stone characteristics, and operative and postoperative data were recorded prospectively. Data were analyzed at 95% confidence interval and considered significant when p value was <0.05. Results: A total of 148 (76 mPNL, 72 sPNL) patients with a history of PNL and/or open surgery were included in the study. The mean duration of operation was longer in mPNL (106.9 vs 91.2 minutes, p = 0.016). The mean duration of fluoroscopy in mPNL was shorter (4.4 vs 5.3 minutes, p = 0.021). The tubeless procedure was higher in the mPNL (21.1% vs 2.8%, p = 0.001). The hemoglobin drop was less in mPNL (0.7 vs 1.4 g/dL, p = 0.011). Duration of nephrostomy and hospitalization was longer in sPNL (p = 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). The success rate in the mPNL group was higher compared with the sPNL group; however, this difference was statistically insignificant (75.0% vs 72.2%, p = 0.558). Conclusion: mPNL is superior to sPNL in terms of hemoglobin drop, duration of fluoroscopy, applicability of a tubeless procedure, and duration of nephrostomy and hospitalization among secondary patients. Duration of operation was found to be longer for mPNL. Success rate was higher in the mPNL group, although not statistically significant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to compare the outcomes of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) and standard PNL techniques in the treatment of renal stones ≥ 2 cm. The study was designed as a randomized prospective study between January 2016 and April 2017. The patients with a kidney stone ≥ 2 cm were included in the study. Patients who had uncorrectable bleeding diathesis, abnormal renal anatomy, skeletal tract abnormalities, pregnant patients and pediatric patients (< 18 years old) were excluded from the study. The remaining patients were randomly divided into two groups as standard PNL and mPNL. For both group, demographic data, stone characteristics, operative data and postoperative data were recorded prospectively. The study included 160 consecutive patients who had kidney stone ≥ 2 cm. Of these, patients who met the exclusion criteria and patients who had missing data were excluded from the study. Remaining 97 patients were randomly divided into two groups as mPNL (n: 46) and standard PNL (n: 51). The mean age was 46.9 ± 13.7 and 47.4 ± 13.9 years for mPNL group and sPNL group, respectively. According to Clavien–Dindo classification, no statistical difference was detected between the groups in terms of complication rates (p 0.31). However, the rates of hemoglobin drop and transfusion rates were significantly in favour of mPNL (p 0.012 and p 0.018, respectively). Nephrostomy time and hospitalization time was found to be significantly shorter in mPNL group (p 0.017 and p 0.01, respectively). The success rate in the mPCNL group was higher than standard PNL group, however, this difference was statistically insignificant (76.5 vs 71.7%, p 0.59). Both mPNL and standard PNL are safe and effective treatment techniques for the treatment of kidney stones of ≥ 2 cm. Although there was no significant difference in success rates of both techniques; nephrostomy time, hospitalization time, bleeding and transfusion rates were in favour of mPNL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]