Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Experimental study of a new technique for minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: intelligent pressure-controlled minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Yang, Zhongsheng; Song, Leming; Huang, Yongming; Chen, Hua; Sun, Ting.
Affiliation
  • Yang Z; Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, No. 16, Meiguan Road, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou City, Jiangxi Province, 341000, China.
  • Song L; Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, No. 17, Yongwaizheng Street, Donghu Street, Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, 330006, China.
  • Huang Y; Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, No. 16, Meiguan Road, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou City, Jiangxi Province, 341000, China.
  • Chen H; Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, No. 16, Meiguan Road, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou City, Jiangxi Province, 341000, China.
  • Sun T; Department of Urology, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, No. 16, Meiguan Road, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou City, Jiangxi Province, 341000, China.
BMC Surg ; 24(1): 68, 2024 Feb 22.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38388440
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

To test the reliability and safety of a newly invented technique for minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy, intelligent pressure-controlled minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (IPC-MPCNL).

METHODS:

Eighteen kidneys of nine female pigs were randomly divided into three groups. Those in Groups A and B underwent IPC-MPCNL through the new system composed of a pressure-measuring MPCNL suctioning sheath and an irrigation and suctioning platform with pressure feedback control. The infusion flow rate was 500 ml/min in Group A and 750 ml/min in Group B. Those in Group C underwent MPCNL at an infusion flow rate of 500 ml/min. The renal pelvic pressure (RPP) monitored by a ureteral catheter and that monitored by the pressure-measuring sheath in Groups A and B were compared. The RPP in Group C was monitored by a ureteral catheter.

RESULTS:

The RPP measured by the pressure-measuring sheath and that measured by the ureteral catheter in Group A was - 5.59 ± 1.95 mmHg and 4.46 ± 2.08 mmHg, respectively. The RPP measured by the pressure-measuring sheath and that measured by the ureteral catheter in Group B was - 4.00 ± 2.01 mmHg and 5.92 ± 2.05 mmHg, respectively. Hence, the RPPs measured by the pressure-measuring sheath in Groups A and B were consistent with those measured by the ureteral catheter. The RPP in Group C was 27.75 ± 5.98 mmHg (large fluctuations).

CONCLUSIONS:

IPC-MPCNL can be used to accurately monitor the RPP and maintain it within a preset safe range via suction. The new technique and the new system are safe and reliable.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous Limits: Animals Language: En Journal: BMC Surg Year: 2024 Type: Article Affiliation country: China

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous Limits: Animals Language: En Journal: BMC Surg Year: 2024 Type: Article Affiliation country: China