Pilot study assesses detection accuracy of non-papillary accesses in fluoroscopic nephrolithotomy, suggesting imaging improvements.
Fluoroscopic access techniques may not reliably differentiate between papillary and non-papillary renal access during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL), potentially leading to misinterpretations that could increase complication risks. This pilot study aimed to evaluate whether a novel radiopaque 3D-printed collecting system model could be used to investigate the feasibility of identifying non-papillary accesses using different biplanar fluoroscopic techniques in the supine PNL setting. This experimental study was conducted in February 2023 using a 3D-printed Dentagum resin model of the renal collecting system fixed in a supine position. Five intentionally non-papillary accesses (two lower calyces, three middle calyces) that appeared papillary at a 0° fluoroscopic angle were created. Four biplanar fluoroscopic access techniques (0-30° cephalad, 0-30° caudal, 0-20° lateral, and 0-90°) were then employed to detect whether these accesses could be identified as non-papillary. Among the five non-papillary accesses, 0-30° cephalad detected one (20%), 0-30° caudal detected two (40%), and 0-90° detected two (40%), while 0-20° lateral detected none. Both non-papillary accesses in the lower calyx were correctly identified using 0-90°, with one additionally detected by 0-30° cephalad and the other by 0-30° caudal. Of the three non-papillary middle calyx accesses, only one was detected (via 0-30° caudal), whereas the other two were missed by all tested angles. Additional angles (e.g., 60° lateral-30° cephalad) further increased non-papillary detection rates. This pilot study demonstrates that non-papillary accesses may appear papillary under standard biplanar fluoroscopic techniques, suggesting a risk of misinterpretation and underscoring the potential benefit of incorporating additional imaging angles to improve detection accuracy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bıçaklıoğlu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: