[PP-031]Comparison of papillary vs nonpapillary access in percutaneous nephrolithotomyEyüp Veli Küçük1, Ahmet Tahra2, Resul Sobay1, Ahmet Bindayi3, Kemal Sarica42Department of Urology, Tuzla State Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey 3Department of Urology, Bahcesehir University Medical Park Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey 4Department of Urology, Health Sciences University KartalTraining and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey INTRODUCTION: Recent literature suggests that papillary access of the renal calix is the accepted method during percutaneous nephrolithotomy(PCNL). In our clinic practise we make puncture at the infundibulum or the direction of the pelvis in cases where papillary access couldn’t be done or is not possible due to rotation of kidney. This study aims to compare papillary vs nonpapillary access in the terms of blood loss during PCNL. MATERIAL-METHODS: Patients with renal stones over 2 cm whom treated with PCNL between 2016-2017 were analyzed and divided into two groups, retrospectively. Postoperative blood loss, operative time, number of access, stone free status were analyzed. RESULTS: Seventy two patients with papilary access and 56 patients with nonpapillary access were analyzed. Age, stone size, body mass index, comorbidities were similar. Blood loss(postoperative hemoglobin drop), stone free status and transfusion rates were also similar. Operative time was similar but florosocopy time was higher in papillary group. Overal complication rater were %5.5 vs %5.3 and were also similar. CONCLUSION: In the terms of blood loss, postoperative complicaiton rates and stone free status, nonpapillary access is safe and effective method in PCNL |