Top

World Journal of Urology

Published in:

01-12-2011 | Original Article

The learning curve in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy: a 1-year retrospective evaluation of a novice and an expert

Authors: David Schilling, Georgios Gakis, Ute Walcher, Arnulf Stenzl, Udo Nagele

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 6/2011

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare a novice surgeon with an expert surgeon independently performing minimally invasive percutaneous neprolitholapaxy (PCNL) excluding the influence of the expert in the learning curve.

Methods

Clinical records of 84 patients (novice: n = 35; expert: n = 49) undergoing minimally invasive PCNL between 04/2007 and 04/2008 were retrospectively reviewed for the following parameters: drop in hemoglobin, operative and fluoroscopy time, length of hospital stay, stone-free rate and complication rate. Complications were graded according to the Clavien classification. Statistical analysis was carried out by student’s t test (Chi-square test) with p < 0.05 considered significant.

Results

The novice surgeon experienced longer median operative and fluoroscopy time, lower stone-free rate and higher re-treatment rate (all p < 0.005) but no longer length of hospital stay (p = 0.19) compared to the experienced surgeon. The novice showed a notable improvement in operating time (p = 0.0208). Altogether, 16 complications occurred in 84 minimally invasive PCNL (19.1%) with five patients (6.0%) encountering grade III complications. Four patients (8.2%) treated by the expert surgeon developed complications (all grade I/II) compared to 12 of the patients (34.3%) treated by the novice surgeon (p = 0.0265). All grade III complications occurred in the first 20 patients of the novice surgeon group.

Conclusions

Despite longer operating time and a lower initial stone-free rate, the novice showed a significant improvement with growing experience and a low rate of higher grade (≥IIIa) complications. This demonstrates that the concept of minimally invasive PCNL can also be learned by urologists who do not have the support of an experienced colleague without endangering patient safety.

Allen D, O’Brien T, Tiptaft R et al (2005) Defining the learning curve for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 19:279–282PubMedCrossRef

Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196PubMedCrossRef

Feng MI, Tamaddon K, Mikhail A et al (2001) Prospective randomized study of various techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 58:345–350PubMedCrossRef

Hacker A, Wendt-Nordahl G, Honeck P et al (2007) A biological model to teach percutaneous nephrolithotomy technique with ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided access. J Endourol 21:545–550PubMedCrossRef

Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51:899–906PubMedCrossRef

Nagele U, Anastasiadis AG, Schilling DA et al (2007) Introducing a new sealant applicator for easy, safe, and quick closure of a mini-percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy access tract. J Endourol 21:393–396PubMedCrossRef

Nagele U, Horstmann M, Sievert KD et al (2007) A newly designed amplatz sheath decreases intrapelvic irrigation pressure during mini-percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy: an in vitro pressure-measurement and microscopic study. J Endourol 21:1113–1116PubMedCrossRef

Nagele U, Schilling D, Anastasiadis AG et al (2006) Closing the tract of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy with gelatine matrix hemostatic sealant can replace nephrostomy tube placement. Urology 68:489–493PubMedCrossRef

Nagele U, Schilling D, Sievert KD et al (2008) Management of lower-pole stones of 0.8 to 1.5 cm maximal diameter by the minimally invasive percutaneous approach. J Endourol 22:1851–1853PubMedCrossRef

10.

Patel SR, Haleblian GE, Pareek G (2010) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy can be safely performed in the high-risk patient. Urology 75:51–55

11.

Schilling D, Gakis G, Walcher U et al. (2009) Minimally invasive percutaneous treatment of lower pole stones with a diameter of 8 to 15 Millimeters. Aktuelle Urol 40:351–354

12.

Tanriverdi O, Boylu U, Kendirci M et al (2007) The learning curve in the training of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 52:206–211PubMedCrossRef

13.

Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K et al (2008) Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified Clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 53:184–190PubMedCrossRef

Title: The learning curve in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy: a 1-year retrospective evaluation of a novice and an expert
Authors: David Schilling
Georgios Gakis
Ute Walcher
Arnulf Stenzl
Udo Nagele
Publication date: 01-12-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 6/2011
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0553-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The learning curve in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy: a 1-year retrospective evaluation of a novice and an expert

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2011

Comparison of efficacy and safety of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stones of different locations in children: a study of 311 cases

Choosing the nephrostomy size after percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Alterations of the gene expression profile in renal cell carcinoma after treatment with the histone deacetylase-inhibitor valproic acid and interferon-alpha

Beyond ESWL: new concepts for definitive stone removal

Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus miniaturized PNL for solitary renal calculi of 10–30 mm size

Treatment of pediatric urolithiasis: how small is “small enough”?