Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: outcome and complications

Abstract

BackgroundRenal stones are a prevalent urological disorder with various treatment options, including minimally invasive techniques such as Standard-PCNL (S-PCNL) and Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (M-PCNL). This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of M-PCNL and S-PCNL for managing renal calculi.MethodsThis randomized study enrolled 60 patients with renal stones, comparing the efficacy and safety of M-PCNL (Group A) and S-PCNL (Group B) procedures. Preoperative assessments, surgical procedures, and postoperative care were conducted, and outcomes such as operating time, stone clearance, analgesic requirement, and hospital stay were evaluated. Data analysis was performed using SPSS software, with comparisons between groups conducted using the Chi-square test and Student t test.ResultsM-PCNL had a longer operation time (133.73 ± 29.18 min) than S-PCNL (48.6 ± 17.88 min, p = 0.009) but a lower mean drop in hemoglobin levels (0.14 ± 0.01 g/dL vs. 0.82 ± 0.05 g/dL, p = 0.032). The success rates (stone-free rate) were significantly different, with 100% in the M-PCNL group and 86.7% in the S-PCNL group (p = 0.040). Complications were generally fewer in the M-PCNL group, including postoperative fever in 2 cases (M-PCNL) vs. 8 cases (S-PCNL) and mild collection in 4 cases (M-PCNL) vs. 26 cases (S-PCNL).ConclusionsM-PCNL is an effective and safer method for managing renal calculi smaller than 3 cm, offering a higher stone-free rate, lower postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stays compared to S-PCNL. Despite longer operation times due to stone fragmentation, M-PCNL has fewer complications, including lower bleeding rates, hemoglobin drop, and leakage, and can be performed using an ureteroscope when a miniperc scope is unavailable.