Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Brant Fulmer

Publications and source records attributed to Brant Fulmer.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Success in treating renal calculi with single-access, single-event percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is a routine "second look" necessary?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is an effective procedure for the treatment of large renal calculi. An important consideration for patients undergoing PCNL is the management of any residual stone burden, which may include "second-look" nephroscopy. The utility of this practice is unproven, and we present our data on a series of patients in which second-look procedures were not performed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 43 consecutive patients undergoing a total of 45 procedures by a single surgeon at a tertiary-care center. Patients were considered stone free if no calculi were evident by either plain film or noncontrast CT scan. Statistical analysis was used to look for correlations between radiographic stone clearance and various patient and stone characteristics. RESULTS: Of these procedures, 15% had immediate postoperative evidence of residual fragments. At a mean follow-up of 8 months, 32.5% had residual or recurrent stone. There were statistically significant correlations between both patient age and stone size and the risk of recurrent or residual stone. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, PCNL was effective for the single-stage treatment of large renal calculi. Aggressive stone clearance obviated the need for routine second-look nephroscopy. Factors leading to an increased risk of residual or recurrent calculi included the presence of a staghorn calculus and younger patient age. The excellent stone-free rates achieved suggest that routine second-look nephroscopy may not be necessary for the majority of patients undergoing PCNL.

Adolescent↗

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with a transportable electrohydraulic lithotripter: experience with >300 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To review a multicentre experience of using a transportable lithotripter (STS-T, Medstone, Inc, Aliso Viejo, CA. USA) for treating patients with urolithiasis in all parts of the urinary tract. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 326 patients with a total of 370 stones were treated as outpatients with the STS-T lithotripter. All patients received a single shock wave lithotripsy treatment and were followed after 4-6 weeks in the outpatient clinic, the primary endpoint being to determine the efficacy (as defined by the stone-free rate). Secondary objectives included establishing a database of patient demographic information, stone characteristics, stone location, procedural endpoints, and complication rates. RESULTS: In all there were 370 procedures, with a mean of 2394 shocks administered at an energy level of 24 kV. The mean treatment time was 51 min, excluding anaesthesia-induction time. The mean stone aggregate size was 8.2 mm; 62% of the stones were in the kidney while 38% were in various locations in the ureter. Of the treated stones, 90% had definite or probable evidence of fragmentation. The overall stone-free rate after one treatment with the STS-T was 52.8%. Of patients with residual fragments, most (61%) had fragments of <4 mm in aggregate diameter. The overall complication rate was 3.8%, the most common complication being postoperative pain. CONCLUSION: The Medstone STS-T lithotripter was an effective device for treating urolithiasis in all parts of the urinary tract. This system had a high margin of safety, as shown by the low complication rate. With no apparent sacrifice of efficacy compared to first-generation or fixed (not transportable) second-generation devices, the Medstone STS-T represents an important advance in the development of a truly transportable lithotripter.

Adult↗

Establishing a robotics program.

Establishing a successful robotics program requires consideration of several issues, including the surgical procedures to be performed, training and personnel, facilities, finance, and marketing. This article considers these factors from an academic health center standpoint and evaluates the benefits and risks of this new technology for urology departments.

Health Facilities↗