A comparison of balloon and amplatz dilators in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a retrospective evaluation.

Research paper by Burak B Özçift, Kaan K Bal, Çetin Ç Dinçel

Indexed on: 01 Dec '13Published on: 01 Dec '13Published in: Turkish journal of urology


In this study, we compared our experience using balloon and amplatz dilatation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). We also evaluated peri- and postoperative variables, including success rates.Two hundred renal stone patients (123 men/77 women) underwent PCNL at the Urology Clinic of İzmir Atatürk Training and Research Hospital from September 2005 to May 2011. The nephrostomy tract was dilated using a balloon (128 patients) or amplatz (72 patients) dilator. The groups were compared by age, total operating time, treatment success rate, retreatment rate, pre- and postoperative hematocrit values, mean decrease in hematocrit values, blood transfusion rate, stone burden, tract dilatation failure, hospital stay and nephrostomy removal times, stone localization, previous stone operation and the cost of the dilatation system.There was no statistically significant difference in the operative time (97.9±45.3 minutes in balloon group vs. 98.5±43.4 minutes in the amplatz group; p=0.43), preoperative hematocrit value (39.04±4.21 vs. 38.94±4.49; p=0.87), postoperative hematocrit value (32.74±4.86 vs. 32.48±5.43; p=0.73), decrease in hematocrit values (6.30±2.60 vs. 6.45±2.64; p=0.68), blood transfusion rate (15.6% vs. 16.7%; p=0.84) or treatment success rate (78.9% vs. 79.2%; p=0.96) between balloon and amplatz groups. Differences in other variables were also not observed between the two groups.The balloon or amplatz dilatation methods have similar results with regard to efficacy, speed, and safety. However, the cost of the balloon dilator is higher than that of the amplatz dilator.