title: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children: does age matter?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in 2 age groups.
  
  
  METHODS
  Fifty-one renal units (RU) of 45 patients were operated between January 2006 and December 2010. In all patients, PCNL was performed by pediatric nephroscope of 17F size through a 20F Amplatz sheath. Patients were examined in 2 groups (Group1: ≤5 years, Group 2: >5 years) and outcomes were compared accordingly.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean age was 5.95 ± 3.63 years and male-to-female ratio was 23/22. The mean stone burden, operative time, and postoperative hospital stay were 4.24 ± 2.03 cm(2), 94.30 ± 37.28 min, and 5.18 ± 2.97 days, respectively. In the postoperative period, 44 renal units (86.2%) were stone-free. Two age groups were similar regarding the postoperative hospital stay, gender distribution, stone location, stone composition, and complication rates. However, stone burden and number of access was less and stone-free rate was higher in younger age group.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The stone-free rate in preschool children is at least as good as older children without an increase in complication rates. The older children (>5 years) have a higher stone burden and need multiple accesses more frequently. The complications are mostly low grade and can be managed conservatively. Our results showed that PCNL in younger children as safe and effective as in the older children and age should not be considered as a limiting factor.
authors: Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Uludag University, 16059, Bursa, Gorukle, Turkey. hasedogan@yahoo.com
authors: Hasan Serkan
authors: HS
authors: Dogan
authors: Hakan
authors: H
authors: Kilicarslan
authors: Yakup
authors: Y
authors: Kordan
authors: Sinan
authors: S
authors: Celen
authors: Bulent
authors: B
authors: Oktay
references: J Urol. 2004 Sep;172(3):1078-81
references: 15311042
references: Urol Int. 2010;85(4):455-60
references: 20829576
references: J Urol. 2007 May;177(5):1867-71
references: 17437838
references: J Endourol. 2007 Sep;21(9):961-6
references: 17941769
references: Urology. 1997 Jun;49(6):831-6
references: 9187686
references: J Urol. 1985 Dec;134(6):1166-7
references: 4057408
references: J Endourol. 2010 Dec;24(12):1935-9
references: 20815757
references: Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
references: 15273542
references: J Pediatr Urol. 2007 Feb;3(1):36-9
references: 18947696
references: J Endourol. 2010 Dec;24(12):1941-6
references: 20858062
references: J Urol. 2010 Dec;184(6):2498-502
references: 20961572
references: J Endourol. 2004 Feb;18(1):23-7
references: 15006048
references: Urology. 2010 Jul;76(1):247-52
references: 20022089
references: Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976;10(3):257-9
references: 1006190
references: World J Urol. 2004 Oct;22(4):277-80
references: 15448997
references: J Urol. 2011 Jan;185(1):264-8
references: 21074805
references: J Endourol. 2002 Mar;16(2):75-8
references: 11962558
references: J Urol. 2004 Oct;172(4 Pt 2):1600-3
references: 15371769
references: Urol Res. 2011 Feb;39(1):45-9
references: 20396872
references: Urology. 2004 Jan;63(1):159-62; discussion 162
references: 14751372
references: J Pediatr Urol. 2007 Jun;3(3):235-8
references: 18947742
references: Urology. 2006 May;67(5):937-41
references: 16635515
references: J Urol. 1999 Nov;162(5):1710-3
references: 10524919
references: BJU Int. 2006 Feb;97(2):359-63
references: 16430647
references: J Endourol. 2005 Oct;19(8):968-72
references: 16253060
references: J Endourol. 2010 Aug;24(8):1357-61
references: 20618100
references: BJU Int. 2005 Jan;95(1):137-9
references: 15638911