Comparison of Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Renal Pelvic Stones of 2-3 cm.

Abstract

Backgrounds: Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (M-PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) are commonly used methods for the treatment of kidney stones. The aim of our study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of M-PCNL and RIRS for the treatment of renal pelvic stones with a diameter of 2-3 cm. Materials and Methods: The study included 250 patients, who underwent surgery for renal pelvic stones. M-PCNL and RIRS were performed on 130 and 120 patients, respectively. Age, gender, body mass index of the patients, stone size, the side of surgery, operative times, history of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy, Hounsfield unit (HU) values, the length of hospital stay, stone-free rate (SFR), complication rates according to the modified Clavien system, postoperative hemoglobin loss, postoperative transfusion rates, postoperative narcotic analgesic use, and the number of secondary interventions were recorded. SFR in the postoperative first and third months were calculated. A chi-square test, Student's t-test, and the Wilcoxon test were used for statistical analyses. Results: No statistically significant differences were found in the demographic data, stone size, complication rates defined according to the modified Clavien system, HU values, and postoperative transfusion rates between the patient groups (P > .05). The success rate was statistically significantly higher regarding the postoperative first-month SFR in the M-PCNL group (P < .05). The postoperative third-month SFR after secondary interventions were similar between the groups. The examination of the postoperative hemoglobin loss and narcotic analgesic use and the length of hospital stay revealed superior results in the RIRS group (P < .05). Conclusion: M-PCNL and RIRS are effective and safe methods for the treatment of renal pelvic stones. M-PCNL is advantageous because of high SFR in the postoperative first month and the low need for secondary interventions, whereas RIRS has been found more advantageous in terms of the length of hospital stay, use of narcotic analgesics, and postoperative hemoglobin loss. Further studies on patients with multiple caliceal stones and on patients with a greater stone burden are needed.