You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP35-16 LASER-GUIDED RENAL ACCESS FOR PCNL: A COMPARISON TO CONVENTIONAL RENAL ACCESS Alphie Rotinsulu, Matthew Buell, Ala'a Farkouh, Akin S. Amasyali, Rose Leu, Kanha Shete, Cliff De Guzman, and D. Duane Baldwin Alphie RotinsuluAlphie Rotinsulu More articles by this author , Matthew BuellMatthew Buell More articles by this author , Ala'a FarkouhAla'a Farkouh More articles by this author , Akin S. AmasyaliAkin S. Amasyali More articles by this author , Rose LeuRose Leu More articles by this author , Kanha SheteKanha Shete More articles by this author , Cliff De GuzmanCliff De Guzman More articles by this author , and D. Duane BaldwinD. Duane Baldwin More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003269.16AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: A variety of techniques exist for gaining renal access during PCNL. Commonly used methods include fluoroscopy and ultrasound guided access. Fluoroscopy exposes patients and staff to radiation, while ultrasound is user dependent and has a steep learning curve. The Direct Alignment Radiation Reduction Technique (DARRT) was developed to utilize the best of both conventional methods while using laser targeting to reduce fluoroscopy use. The purpose of this study was to determine how DARRT compares to conventional fluoroscopy for renal access in clinical practice. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing PCNL at a single academic institution from January 2017 to June 2022. Patients with pre-existing nephrostomy tubes used for access, hybrid techniques, and ultrasound-guided access were excluded from analysis. Renal access was categorized into either fluoroscopy or DARRT, and the physician obtaining access was noted. Univariate analysis was performed with the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and Pearson’s Chi Square test, followed by multivariate analysis with factorial ANOVA; p<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Out of 340 PCNL patients, 245 met inclusion criteria. Baseline patient age, BMI, ASA score, Charleston comorbidity score, and stone density were similar between renal access techniques. Patients in the DARRT group had more partial/full staghorn calculi (84% vs 67%; p=0.003). In 92 (37.6%) cases, fluoroscopy was used for renal access and the other 153 (62.4%) cases used DARRT. In 82% of cases, PCNL was performed by an endourologist, whereas the remainder of the cases were performed by a general urologist. DARRT reduced total median procedural fluoroscopy time from 175.8 s to 14.1 s (p<0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated DARRT is an independent factor for decreasing fluoroscopy time. Stone free rates, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, complications, and rates of second look operations remained similar (p>0.05 for all) between renal access methods. CONCLUSIONS: The use of DARRT for renal access reduced fluoroscopy time by 92%, without altering stone-free or complication rates. This method is easily learned and can be combined with other known radiation reduction techniques to protect both patients and surgical staff from unnecessary radiation exposure. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e476 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Alphie Rotinsulu More articles by this author Matthew Buell More articles by this author Ala'a Farkouh More articles by this author Akin S. Amasyali More articles by this author Rose Leu More articles by this author Kanha Shete More articles by this author Cliff De Guzman More articles by this author D. Duane Baldwin More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract