Translate this page into:
Authors reply on “Percutaneous nephrostomy under ultrasound guidance”
Address for correspondence: Dr. Ranen Kanti Aich, Simultala, Agarpara, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal-700 109, India. E-mail: ranenaich@rediffmail.com
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.
Sir,
‘Percutaneous nephrostomy’[12] is a very effective procedure to relieve upper urinary tract obstruction temporarily, but is seldom practiced. Baishya et al.[1] correctly pointed out the benefits of the procedure under ultrasound guidance, as also particularly the risk of long-term radiation to the health personnel. The observations of the authors and that of Baishya et al.[1] are essentially similar. The debate between the proponents of the freehand technique and attached guide technique is age-old.[3] In our opinion, the freehand technique proves better in needle visualization and correct placement of the catheter. The Malecot catheter might be a better alternative in certain situations, where there is a significant chance of catheter blockage e.g. presence of pus or blood clot in the obstructed calyx.
References
- Percutaneous nephrostomy under ultrasound guidance. Indian J Nephrol. 2011;21:131-2.
- [Google Scholar]
- Percutaneous nephrostomy by direct puncture technique: An observational study. Indian J Nephrol. 2010;20:84-8.
- [Google Scholar]
- Biopsy, drainage and percutaneous treatment of a mass. In: Bluth EI I, ed. In Ultrasonography in urology (2nd ed). New York: Thieme Medical Publishers; p. :156-64.
- [Google Scholar]
