Endoscopic-guided versus fluoroscopic-guided renal access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparative analysis

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the intraoperative outcomes of percutaneous renal access using fluoroscopic-guided access (FGA) vs endoscopic-guided access (EGA).

Methods: A retrospective record review was conducted of patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), categorized by the method of achieving renal access. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 endourologists: 1 practicing EGA and the other practicing FGA. Patient demographics, baseline characteristics, and operative and postoperative outcomes were compared using univariate and multivariate analysis.

Results: From August 2010 to January 2012, 159 patients underwent PCNL (40% EGA, 60% FGA). No significant difference was observed between groups in age (P = .06), American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification (P = .7), number of stones (P = .058), cumulative stone diameter (P = .051), number of calyces involved (P = .82), and stone density (P = .49). Body mass index (BMI) was higher in patients undergoing EGA (P = .013). Patients undergoing EGA had shorter fluoroscopy time (3.2 vs 16.8 minutes, P <.001) and lower access number (1.03 vs 1.22 P = .002). Fluoroscopy time was longer for FGA than for EGA after adjusting for BMI, staghorn stones, and access number (P <.001). No significant difference was noted in change in hemoglobin, blood transfusion rate, operative time, or intraoperative complications between groups. Procedures were aborted due to bleeding more commonly in the FGA (8%) than in the EGA group (0%, P = .02) A secondary procedure for stone management was required in 2 (3.2%) of the EGA group compared with 12 (12.5%) of the FGA group.

Conclusion: EGA is safe and effective and leads to decreased fluoroscopy time, decreased need for multiple accesses, and decreased risk of early termination of the procedure or need for secondary procedures.