title: The vacuum cleaner effect in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Percutaneous stone removal increasingly plays an important role among the different approaches of interventional stone therapy, particularly since the development of miniaturized instruments is resulting in lower morbidity for the patients. One major drawback of smaller instruments is the increased difficulty of stone retrieval after disintegration due to the reduced tract diameter. This results in longer operation time and the need of additional tools such as disposable retrieval baskets. One of the key factors in the development of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy (MIP) was the design of an Amplatz sheath which provides a built-in vacuum cleaner effect for stone retrieval.
  
  
  METHODS
  A series of flow analyses with the gauges and shapes of the most commonly used nephroscopes and sheaths in percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy was performed by computational fluid dynamics. Flow velocity and direction in front of the nephroscope were computed and visualized by the software.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In our study, the vacuum cleaner effect developed exclusively when a round-shaped nephroscope was used (Nagele Miniature Nephroscope System, Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG) and depended on the relation between nephroscope diameter and inner sheath diameter. The strongest effect was observed with a 12 F nephroscope and an inner sheath diameter of 15 F. It did not develop when an oval- or crescent-shaped nephroscope was used. In front of the distal end of the round-shaped nephroscope, a slipstream develops, induced by the excursive change of width of the fluid flow on the outlet of the flushing canal. This allows the adhesion of a stone fragment in the eddy while the fluid flow is circulating around the stone.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study illustrates and explains the vacuum cleaner effect which has been detected in the development of the Nagele Miniature Nephroscope System used in MIP. It combines the reduced morbidity of smaller kidney puncture diameters with the benefit of quick and complete stone removal.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology and Andrology, General Hospital Hall in Tyrol, Milser Strasse 10, 6060, Hall in Tirol, Austria. andre.nicklas@tilak.at.
authors.forename: André P
authors.initials: AP
authors.lastname: Nicklas
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Schilling
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Kreisklinik Ebersberg Gemeinnützige GmbH, Ebersberg, Germany.
authors.forename: Markus J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Bader
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology and Urologic-Oncology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
authors.forename: Thomas R W
authors.initials: TR
authors.lastname: Herrmann
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology and Andrology, General Hospital Hall in Tyrol, Milser Strasse 10, 6060, Hall in Tirol, Austria. udo.nagele@tilak.at.
authors.forename: Udo
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Nagele
mesh_terms: D019723:Endoscopes / Q000592:standards*; D004867:Equipment Design; D006801:Humans; D007669:Kidney Calculi / Q000601:surgery*; D019060:Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures / Q000295:instrumentation*; D009403:Nephrostomy, Percutaneous / Q000295:instrumentation*; D014618:Vacuum
keywords: Computational fluid dynamics; MIP; Nephrolitholapaxy; PCNL; Stone extraction; Vacuum cleaner effect
references.citation: BJU Int. 2011 Sep;108(6):896-9; discussion 899-900
references.pmid: 21477212
references.citation: Br J Urol. 1996 Sep;78(3):460-3
references.pmid: 8881962
references.citation: J Endourol. 2005 Mar;19(2):204-9
references.pmid: 15798419
references.citation: J Endourol. 2010 Jun;24(6):949-52
references.pmid: 20491571
references.citation: J Endourol. 2008 Sep;22(9):2147-51
references.pmid: 18811571
references.citation: J Endourol. 2007 Sep;21(9):1113-6
references.pmid: 17941796
references.citation: J Endourol. 2010 Oct;24(10):1579-82
references.pmid: 20839954
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2001 Dec;40(6):619-24
references.pmid: 11805407
references.citation: J Urol. 2002 Oct;168(4 Pt 1):1348-51
references.pmid: 12352390
references.citation: J Urol. 1997 May;157(5):1578-82
references.pmid: 9112480
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2007 Apr;51(4):899-906; discussion 906
references.pmid: 17095141
references.citation: Urology. 2006 Sep;68(3):489-93; discussion 493-4
references.pmid: 16979734
references.citation: Urol Clin North Am. 2013 Feb;40(1):99-113
references.pmid: 23177638
references.citation: Urolithiasis. 2013 Nov;41(6):523-30
references.pmid: 23975408
references.citation: Urology. 2001 Sep;58(3):345-50
references.pmid: 11549477
references.citation: World J Urol. 1998;16(6):371-4
references.pmid: 9870281
references.citation: Urologe A. 2008 Sep;47(9):1066, 1068-73
references.pmid: 18709351
references.citation: Urol Int. 2012;88(4):373-82
references.pmid: 22433470
references.citation: Korean J Radiol. 2006 Jan-Mar;7(1):50-6
references.pmid: 16549956
references.citation: Urology. 2004 Jun;63(6):1042-4
references.pmid: 15183944
references.citation: J Urol. 2004 Aug;172(2):559-61
references.pmid: 15247729
references.citation: J Urol. 1981 Apr;125(4):463-6
references.pmid: 7218439
references.citation: J Endourol. 2000 Apr;14(3):269-72; discussion 272-3
references.pmid: 10795617
references.citation: J Endourol. 2007 Apr;21(4):393-6
references.pmid: 17451328
references.citation: Mayo Clin Proc. 1982 Oct;57(10):615-9
references.pmid: 7121066