Talk:Percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Really it is suitable for stone more then 2 cm in size?

There is a article simpsons'paradox in wikipedia where this method is compared with open surgery method. There are desribed as treetment A and B but I have looked original paper. Open surgery achieved better results in both case (small and big size of stones, boundary was 2 cm as well), but because these method was used preferently for small size stones (that are generally easier treated), the grand average showed false result, that Percutaneous nephrolithotomy is more effective.

So I am not specialist, but from this is evident that this method can be effective using only for small stones. According this article (Britis medical journal vol. 292, page 879 - 882) 77% patients treated by Percutaneous nephrolithotomy had stones smaller then 2 cm. --212.5.210.202 (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

5pang needle
I removed this edit from user possibly an employee of Institute of Urology, run by Tejnaksh Healthcare PVT LTD, than, finding this article I tried to fix the paragraph, but not knowing the subject I couldn't understand the sense of this sentence: "The first 3 parts when assembled measure 18G in thickness. The 4th and the 5th part when assembled augment the outer diameter of the needle to 9 Fr. This is followed by a telescopic or balloon dilatation of the tract." so I gave up. --Dia^ (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Pelvis?
I think it means renal pelvis, but I'm no expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.180.48 (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)