RESUMEN
Background: The aim of this study was to assess the early postoperative pulmonary function and arterial blood gases in patients who have undergone open versus laparoscopic nephrectomy. Materials and Methods: Forty patients were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic (LN, n=20) or open nephrectomy (ON, n=20). Pulmonary function tests including forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume at 25% (FEF25), forced expiratory volume at 50% (FEF50), forced expiratory volume at 25% to 75% (FEF25–75), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FIV1) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) were performed one day before the operation and on the postoperative day 1. The arterial blood gas analysis (pH, pCO2, pO2, SaO2) was made at breathing room preoperatively, in the recovery phase and on postoperative day 1. Results: All spirometric variables decreased after both open and laparoscopic nephrectomy on postoperative day 1. FEV1, FVC, FEF25 and FEF25–75 values decreased on postoperative day 1 (39.7%, 37.4%, 27.7%, 51.8% respectively) in the open surgery group and they were significantly lower in laparoscopic group (29.9%, 32.5%, 23.2%, 44.5% respectively). There were no significant differences in FEF50, PEF and FIV1 between the groups. The SaO2 and pO2 values also decreased in both groups. During early recovery, pH decreased while pCO2 increased significantly but they returned to preoperative values on postoperative day 1 in both groups. Conclusion: Laparoscopic nephrectomy is better than open nephrectomy considering pulmonary functions.
Asunto(s)
Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Laparoscopía/métodos , Pulmón/fisiopatología , Nefrectomía/métodos , Laparoscopía/efectos adversos , Nefrectomía/efectos adversos , Tempo Operativo , Dimensión del Dolor , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Periodo Posoperatorio , Valores de Referencia , Pruebas de Función Respiratoria , Estadísticas no Paramétricas , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the effect of pelvicaliceal anatomical differences on the etiology of lower caliceal stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of adult patients between January 1996 and December 2005 with solitary lower caliceal stone were reviewed. After exclusion of patients with hydronephrosis, major renal anatomic anomalies, non-calcium stones, history of recurrent stone disease and previous renal surgery, 78 patients were enrolled into the study. Lower pole infundibulopelvic angle (IPA), infundibulovertebral angle (IVA), infundibular length (IL), width (IW), number of minor calices and cortical thickness of the lower pole together with other caliceal variables obtained from the whole pelvicaliceal anatomy of both stone-bearing and contralateral normal kidneys were measured from intravenous pyelogram of the patients. Total pelvicaliceal volume was also calculated by a previously described formula for both kidneys. RESULTS: There were statistically significant difference between two kidneys in terms of IW (p < 0.001) and IL (p = 0.002) of the upper calyx, IW (p = 0.001) and IVA (p < 0.001) of the lower calyx), pelvicaliceal volume (p < 0.001), IPA of middle calyx (p = 0.006) and cortical thickness over the lower pole (p < 0.001). However there was no difference between stone-bearing and contralateral normal kidneys in terms of lower pole IPA (p = 0.864) and IL (p = 0.568). CONCLUSION: Pelvicaliceal volume but not lower caliceal properties seem to be a risk factor for stone formation in lower calyx.