Grand Journal of Urology
E-ISSN : 2757-7163

Endourology
Original Article
Objective: We aimed to compare outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) surgery in patients who had and had not undergone renal stone surgery before PNL. Material and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all patients who underwent PNL in our department between 2010 and 2019. Examined parameters consisted of patient demographics, medical and surgical history, stone size, stone density, stone site, estimated intraoperative blood loss, duration of operation, hospital stay and stone-free status. Results: A total of 193 patients were included the study. The mean age of the patients was 45±13 years. The mean duration of surgery was 69±11.5 minutes. The mean stone area was 720.2±600.4 mm2 and the mean stone attenuation was 982.8±327.7 HU. The mean postoperative hemoglobin decrease was 1.8±1.3 g/dL. 66 patients had previous stone surgery including open stone surgery, PNL and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). There was no statistically significant difference between patients who had and had not previousşy undergone renal stone surgery in terms of age, gender, body mass index and stone area. Operative time, estimated intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hemoglobin decreases and hospital stay were comparable between patients who had, and hed not undergone previous renal stone surgery. Stone-free rate was significantly higher in primary PNL patients compared to patients with a history of renal stone surgery (92.1% vs 77.3%, p=0.006). Conclusion: PNL has a similar complication rate in patients with and without previous kidney stone surgery. However, achieving stone-free status may be challenging in patients with a history of ipsilateral renal stone surgery.
Objective: Bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is a minimally invasive procedure that causes fewer problems, and a faster resection, but requires more expensive equipment. It is the treatment of choice for benign prostatic hyperplasia. In this study, its outcomes will be compared to those of conventional monopolar TURP. Materials and Methods: Twenty-seven patients aged between 52 and 65 years underwent either monopolar TURP (Group 1, n: 15) or bipolar TURP (Group 2, n: 12). Preoperative and perioperative data were recorded and analyzed, including the maximal flow rate (Qmax), prostate volume, intraoperatively resected tissue volume, resection velocity, and operation time. Results: Preoperative mean prostate volumes in Groups 1, and 2 were 82.6 ± 21 ml and 78.8 ± 12 ml, respectively (p=0.117). Preoperative mean serum sodium levels were 140.4 ± 2.3 mmol/l in Group 1 and 139.8 ± 2.2 mmol/l in Group 2. Preoperative mean serum hemoglobin values were 15 ± 0.8 g/dl in Group 1, and 14.5 ± 2.2 g/dl in Group 2. Postoperative mean serum sodium levels were 130.6 and 136.7 mmol/l, in Groups 1, and 2, respectively. Eight patients from the monopolar TURP group exhibited a notable drop in serum sodium levels. In the monopolar TURP group, there were 5 occurrences of TUR syndrome and 2 patients needed blood transfusions due to a mean decrease of 5 g/dl in hemoglobin levels. Complications were identified in 7 cases. Conclusion: Compared to monopolar TURP, bipolar TURP is associated with a shorter hospital stay, and lower transfusion and complication rates.
Grand J Urol 2023;3(3):085-089, DOI: 10.5505/GJU.2023.85047
Objective: In this study, we aimed to investigate whether there is a difference in the reliability and efficacy of the method according to age in patients divided into 3 different age groups who underwent RIRS due to kidney stones. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent Retrograde Intra Renal Surgery (RIRS) for kidney or ureteral stone disease at the Urology Clinic of Health Sciences University Umraniye Health Application and Research Hospital between May 2017 and January 2021 were retrospectively screened, and those aged 20-80 years were included in the study. The demographic and clinical data of the patients and stone-related data were recorded. Patients aged 20-40 years were classified as Group 1, those aged 41- 60 years as Group 2, and those aged 61-80 years as Group 3. Results: After the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, the sample consisted of a total of 320 patients, of whom 121 (37.8%) were in Group 1, 133 (41.5%) were in Group 2, and 66 (20.6%) were in Group 3. The mean operative times and stone-free rates were similar between the groups. However, the mean hospital stay was significantly longer in Groups 3 compared to Groups 1 and 2. The minor complication rates were 2.4% in Group 1, 3% in Group 2, and 13.6% in Group 3, indicating a statistically significantly higher value in Group 3 compared to the remaining two groups (p=0.03). The major complication rates of Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 0.8%, 0.7%, and 7.5%, respectively. Accordingly, Group 3 had a significantly higher rate than Groups 1 and 2 (p=0.04). Conclusion: RIRS can be performed on the elderly with success rates comparable to other age groups. However, the elderly, who represent a higher-risk patient population with more comorbidities, have increased rates of minor and major complications both in the perioperative and postoperative periods.
Case Report
Grand J Urol 2023;0(0):, DOI: 10.5505/GJU.2024.39200
Self-inflicted foreign bodies in the urinary bladder are very rarely reported. Insertion of a wide variety of objects into bladder due to autoerotic stimulation, psychiatric disturbances, and senility etc. have been reported in the medical literature. This case report discusses an exceptional incident where a young male patient self-inserted a ball-point pen into his urinary bladder via the urethra. Notably, the pen negotiated the curvatures of the urethra without causing significant lower urinary tract injury. The report underscores the challenges and successful endoscopic removal of the pen, marking the first documented instance of such an extraction in a male patient.
Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor, I read the article by Huseynov et al., [] in which they examined the effects of previous renal stone surgery on percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes with great interest. They concluded that previous renal stone surgery increases the risk of residual stone with a similar complication rate. However, I would like to highlight some issues regarding the methodology and the results of this study. Using the method of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) in the treatment of renal stones 2 cm and greater is a gold standard according to European Association of Urology guidelines []. By increasing surgeon experience and technological development of tools using in PNL surgery increase the success of the surgery and decrease the complication rate. However, it is known that the success of PNL is also affected by some other influencers such as hydronephrosis, stone location, and as well as Hounsfield unit (HU) []. Gucuk et al. [] showed that the higher HU values increase the stone-free rate and HU is an independent predictive factor affecting the success of PNL. In the study by Huseynov et al., the higher HU may influence the stone-free rate of patients in primary PNL. Therefore, we thought that it must be mentioned in the discussion. Another issue that we have to be clear about is estimated blood loss and stone size. In addition to the decrease in hemoglobin level, the estimated blood loss during the surgery was analyzed but not mentioned how was calculated in the relevant section. Furthermore, calculation of stone size was also mentioned as it was multiplying two dimensions but in the result section, it was expressed the volume of stone in mm³ which means multiplying the three dimensions. For this reason, we are curious about your method of calculating the estimated blood loss during the operation and the technique of preoperative stone size calculation. As a result, we think that other factors including stone location in the kidney affects the success PNL. Hence, it should be examined in the study, otherwise, mentioned in the limitations of this study. Ethics Committee Approval: This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by the author. Authorship Contributions: Any contribution was not made by any individual not listed as an author. Concept – E.S., M.K.; Design – E.S., M.K.; Supervision – E.S., M.K.; Resources – E.S., M.K.; Materials – E.S., M.K.; Data Collection and/or Processing – E.S., M.K.; Analysis and/or Interpretation – E.S., M.K.; Literature Search – E.S., M.K.; Writing – E.S., M.K.; Critical Review – E.S., M.K. Conflict of Interest: The author declares that he has no conflict of interest. Financial Disclosure: No grants or funding was provided for this study.