Safe and effective obtainment of access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy by urologists

The Louisiana State University experience

Alison Spann, Jason Poteet, Dustin Hyatt, Leah Chiles, Rowena De Souza, Dennis Venable

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is critical to successful removal of stone burden and is often performed by a specialist other than a urologist. In many regions, however, there is limited availability of such personnel. We reviewed the complication rates that were related to PCNL access when performed at a teaching hospital to establish that access for PCNL may be safely taught to and performed by urology residents. Chief urology residents across the nation were also anonymously surveyed to better understand the current trends and dynamics regarding PCNL access in teaching institutions. Patients and Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed of all PCNLs performed at our institution from 1995 to 2009 for any complications that were related to surgery. Patients with access gained at outside institutions or not attempted at the time of surgery by residents were excluded. The complication rate was compared with those of the American College of Radiology. An eight-question survey was also sent by e-mail to all current urology chief residents regarding their experience with PCNL access during residency. Results: A total of 290 patients underwent PCNL with 338 separate access sites gained at the time of surgery under the supervision of nine teaching staff. Access was gained in all cases at the time of surgery. Major complications included: Transfusion in 20 (5.9%) patients, sepsis in 2 (0.6%) patients, pseudoaneurysm necessitating intervention in 2 (0.6%) patients, hydrothorax in 2 (0.6%) patients, pneuomothorax in 1 (0.3%) patient, ureteropelvic junction disruption in 1 (0.3%) patient, and one death (0.3%) after surgery. Minor complications included: Urinary tract infection in five (1.5%) patients, and collecting system injuries in 6 (1.8%) patients necessitating placement of a ureteral stent. Our survey of residents demonstrated that 53% did not routinely gain access for PCNL at their institution. The 94% who did not get instruction on PCNL access, however, thought it would be a valuable addition to their training. Conclusion: Our results show that access for PCNL surgery can be safely and successfully obtained by genitourinary residents under the supervision of trained staff at the time of surgery. We think that access for PCNL is a valuable tool that should be in the armamentarium of all urologic surgeons on leaving an accredited urology training program.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1421-1425
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Endourology
Volume25
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2011

Fingerprint

Percutaneous Nephrostomy
Urology
Teaching
Urologists
Hydrothorax
False Aneurysm
Postal Service
Internship and Residency
Radiology
Urinary Tract Infections
Teaching Hospitals
Stents
Sepsis

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Urology

Cite this

Safe and effective obtainment of access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy by urologists : The Louisiana State University experience. / Spann, Alison; Poteet, Jason; Hyatt, Dustin; Chiles, Leah; De Souza, Rowena; Venable, Dennis.

In: Journal of Endourology, Vol. 25, No. 9, 01.09.2011, p. 1421-1425.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Spann, Alison ; Poteet, Jason ; Hyatt, Dustin ; Chiles, Leah ; De Souza, Rowena ; Venable, Dennis. / Safe and effective obtainment of access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy by urologists : The Louisiana State University experience. In: Journal of Endourology. 2011 ; Vol. 25, No. 9. pp. 1421-1425.
@article{7754e7072757468591fdb549d3f8b815,
title = "Safe and effective obtainment of access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy by urologists: The Louisiana State University experience",
abstract = "Background and Purpose: Access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is critical to successful removal of stone burden and is often performed by a specialist other than a urologist. In many regions, however, there is limited availability of such personnel. We reviewed the complication rates that were related to PCNL access when performed at a teaching hospital to establish that access for PCNL may be safely taught to and performed by urology residents. Chief urology residents across the nation were also anonymously surveyed to better understand the current trends and dynamics regarding PCNL access in teaching institutions. Patients and Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed of all PCNLs performed at our institution from 1995 to 2009 for any complications that were related to surgery. Patients with access gained at outside institutions or not attempted at the time of surgery by residents were excluded. The complication rate was compared with those of the American College of Radiology. An eight-question survey was also sent by e-mail to all current urology chief residents regarding their experience with PCNL access during residency. Results: A total of 290 patients underwent PCNL with 338 separate access sites gained at the time of surgery under the supervision of nine teaching staff. Access was gained in all cases at the time of surgery. Major complications included: Transfusion in 20 (5.9{\%}) patients, sepsis in 2 (0.6{\%}) patients, pseudoaneurysm necessitating intervention in 2 (0.6{\%}) patients, hydrothorax in 2 (0.6{\%}) patients, pneuomothorax in 1 (0.3{\%}) patient, ureteropelvic junction disruption in 1 (0.3{\%}) patient, and one death (0.3{\%}) after surgery. Minor complications included: Urinary tract infection in five (1.5{\%}) patients, and collecting system injuries in 6 (1.8{\%}) patients necessitating placement of a ureteral stent. Our survey of residents demonstrated that 53{\%} did not routinely gain access for PCNL at their institution. The 94{\%} who did not get instruction on PCNL access, however, thought it would be a valuable addition to their training. Conclusion: Our results show that access for PCNL surgery can be safely and successfully obtained by genitourinary residents under the supervision of trained staff at the time of surgery. We think that access for PCNL is a valuable tool that should be in the armamentarium of all urologic surgeons on leaving an accredited urology training program.",
author = "Alison Spann and Jason Poteet and Dustin Hyatt and Leah Chiles and {De Souza}, Rowena and Dennis Venable",
year = "2011",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/end.2010.0643",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "1421--1425",
journal = "Journal of Endourology",
issn = "0892-7790",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Safe and effective obtainment of access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy by urologists

T2 - The Louisiana State University experience

AU - Spann, Alison

AU - Poteet, Jason

AU - Hyatt, Dustin

AU - Chiles, Leah

AU - De Souza, Rowena

AU - Venable, Dennis

PY - 2011/9/1

Y1 - 2011/9/1

N2 - Background and Purpose: Access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is critical to successful removal of stone burden and is often performed by a specialist other than a urologist. In many regions, however, there is limited availability of such personnel. We reviewed the complication rates that were related to PCNL access when performed at a teaching hospital to establish that access for PCNL may be safely taught to and performed by urology residents. Chief urology residents across the nation were also anonymously surveyed to better understand the current trends and dynamics regarding PCNL access in teaching institutions. Patients and Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed of all PCNLs performed at our institution from 1995 to 2009 for any complications that were related to surgery. Patients with access gained at outside institutions or not attempted at the time of surgery by residents were excluded. The complication rate was compared with those of the American College of Radiology. An eight-question survey was also sent by e-mail to all current urology chief residents regarding their experience with PCNL access during residency. Results: A total of 290 patients underwent PCNL with 338 separate access sites gained at the time of surgery under the supervision of nine teaching staff. Access was gained in all cases at the time of surgery. Major complications included: Transfusion in 20 (5.9%) patients, sepsis in 2 (0.6%) patients, pseudoaneurysm necessitating intervention in 2 (0.6%) patients, hydrothorax in 2 (0.6%) patients, pneuomothorax in 1 (0.3%) patient, ureteropelvic junction disruption in 1 (0.3%) patient, and one death (0.3%) after surgery. Minor complications included: Urinary tract infection in five (1.5%) patients, and collecting system injuries in 6 (1.8%) patients necessitating placement of a ureteral stent. Our survey of residents demonstrated that 53% did not routinely gain access for PCNL at their institution. The 94% who did not get instruction on PCNL access, however, thought it would be a valuable addition to their training. Conclusion: Our results show that access for PCNL surgery can be safely and successfully obtained by genitourinary residents under the supervision of trained staff at the time of surgery. We think that access for PCNL is a valuable tool that should be in the armamentarium of all urologic surgeons on leaving an accredited urology training program.

AB - Background and Purpose: Access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is critical to successful removal of stone burden and is often performed by a specialist other than a urologist. In many regions, however, there is limited availability of such personnel. We reviewed the complication rates that were related to PCNL access when performed at a teaching hospital to establish that access for PCNL may be safely taught to and performed by urology residents. Chief urology residents across the nation were also anonymously surveyed to better understand the current trends and dynamics regarding PCNL access in teaching institutions. Patients and Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed of all PCNLs performed at our institution from 1995 to 2009 for any complications that were related to surgery. Patients with access gained at outside institutions or not attempted at the time of surgery by residents were excluded. The complication rate was compared with those of the American College of Radiology. An eight-question survey was also sent by e-mail to all current urology chief residents regarding their experience with PCNL access during residency. Results: A total of 290 patients underwent PCNL with 338 separate access sites gained at the time of surgery under the supervision of nine teaching staff. Access was gained in all cases at the time of surgery. Major complications included: Transfusion in 20 (5.9%) patients, sepsis in 2 (0.6%) patients, pseudoaneurysm necessitating intervention in 2 (0.6%) patients, hydrothorax in 2 (0.6%) patients, pneuomothorax in 1 (0.3%) patient, ureteropelvic junction disruption in 1 (0.3%) patient, and one death (0.3%) after surgery. Minor complications included: Urinary tract infection in five (1.5%) patients, and collecting system injuries in 6 (1.8%) patients necessitating placement of a ureteral stent. Our survey of residents demonstrated that 53% did not routinely gain access for PCNL at their institution. The 94% who did not get instruction on PCNL access, however, thought it would be a valuable addition to their training. Conclusion: Our results show that access for PCNL surgery can be safely and successfully obtained by genitourinary residents under the supervision of trained staff at the time of surgery. We think that access for PCNL is a valuable tool that should be in the armamentarium of all urologic surgeons on leaving an accredited urology training program.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052614264&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052614264&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/end.2010.0643

DO - 10.1089/end.2010.0643

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 1421

EP - 1425

JO - Journal of Endourology

JF - Journal of Endourology

SN - 0892-7790

IS - 9

ER -