Objectives: In our study, we compared the percutaneous nephrolithotomy cases with amplatz dilatation to the cases with balloon dilatation.
Materials and Methods: Our study was carried out at Ankara Training and Research Hospital, 2. Urology deparment, from July 2008 to September 2011. Percutaneous nephrolitho-tomy cases were divided in to two groups and different dilatation techniques were used for each group. 273 patients ( 173 male and 100 female) and 320 renal unites were included in to the study. Amplatz dilatation technique was used in 204 of 320 renal unites (%63.75) and balloon dilatation technique was used in 116 cases (%36.25). Stone free rates for the first pos-toperative day and the third month, hemoglo-bine decrease, hospitalization time and scopy time for all cases were compared in a retros-pective design.
Results: In the comparison of the cases with amplatz and balloon dilatation, the mean hemoglobine decreases ( Amplatz: 1,31 u.- Bal-loon: 1,03 u.), mean operation time ( Amplatz: 64,41 min. – Balloon: 57,26 min.) and mean scopy time ( Amplatz: 162,45 sec. – Balloon: 129,27 sec.) were found as statistically signi-ficant (p<0.05). Stone free rates for the first postoperative day ( Amplatz: %84.3 - Ballo-on:%85.3 ), stone free rates for postoperative third month ( Amplatz :%88.7 - Balloon :%94.8) and the mean hos-pitalisation time ( Amplatz: 3,26 day- Balloon: 3.2 day) were not statistically significant (p>0.05).
Conclusion: The balloon dilatation technique is expensive, single use and requires experience. These are the disadvantages of this technique. Amplatz dilatation has advantages like it is re-usable and cheaper than balloon. Also, amplatz technique reduces operati-on time, blood loss and scopy time in experienced hand.
Key Words: balloon dilatation,amplatz dilatation,perkutaneous nephrolitotomi
Abstract
Objectives: In our study, we compared the percutaneous nephrolithotomy cases with amplatz dilatation to the cases with balloon dilatation.
Materials and Methods: Our study was carried out at Ankara Training and Research Hospital, 2. Urology deparment, from July 2008 to September 2011. Percutaneous nephrolitho-tomy cases were divided in to two groups and different dilatation techniques were used for each group. 273 patients ( 173 male and 100 female) and 320 renal unites were included in to the study. Amplatz dilatation technique was used in 204 of 320 renal unites (%63.75) and balloon dilatation technique was used in 116 cases (%36.25). Stone free rates for the first pos-toperative day and the third month, hemoglo-bine decrease, hospitalization time and scopy time for all cases were compared in a retros-pective design.
Results: In the comparison of the cases with amplatz and balloon dilatation, the mean hemoglobine decreases ( Amplatz: 1,31 u.- Bal-loon: 1,03 u.), mean operation time ( Amplatz: 64,41 min. – Balloon: 57,26 min.) and mean scopy time ( Amplatz: 162,45 sec. – Balloon: 129,27 sec.) were found as statistically signi-ficant (p<0.05). Stone free rates for the first postoperative day ( Amplatz: %84.3 - Ballo-on:%85.3 ), stone free rates for postoperative third month ( Amplatz :%88.7 - Balloon :%94.8) and the mean hos-pitalisation time ( Amplatz: 3,26 day- Balloon: 3.2 day) were not statistically significant (p>0.05).
Conclusion: The balloon dilatation technique is expensive, single use and requires experience. These are the disadvantages of this technique. Amplatz dilatation has advantages like it is re-usable and cheaper than balloon. Also, amplatz technique reduces operati-on time, blood loss and scopy time in experienced hand.
Key Words: balloon dilatation,amplatz dilatation,perkutaneous nephrolitotomi