Mini-percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Group Research Articles

Evaluation of the Efficacy of Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Comparison with Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Management of Large Renal Stones, a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Abstract Background Management of renal calculi targets complete clearance without any residual fragments, along with pain relief and eradication of the causative micro- organisms. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) is currently the standard treatment option for patients with complex and large renal stones. However, innovations in instruments and techniques have resulted in “miniperc”, which was found to be safe and effective. Aim and Objectives to compare between mini PNL and the standard PNL in management of renal stones (20-40 mm) regarding operative time, fluoroscopy time, blood loss, stone free rate, and postoperative complications according to modified Clavein system. Subjects and Methods This prospective randomized comparative study was carried out at Urology department Ain Shams University hospitals, from 2019 to 2022 on 93 patients coming for renal stone management. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group A included 44 patients who underwent standard PNL, whereas Group B included 49 patients who underwent mini PNL. Result The standard PNL yielded shorter operating time 70.1 ± 13.9 min vs 96.4 ±14.3 min,p <0.001) Patients in the standard PNL group also had longer hospitalization time, nephrostomy time and catheterization time(4 vs 3 days, 36 vs 24 hours and 5 vs 4 days respectively, p < 0.001). The mean drop in hemoglobin level that necessitated blood transfusion was significantly lower in the mini PNL group (0.7 vs 1.6 gm/dl, p < 0.0001). Although the stone-free rate was higher in the standard PNL group, but this was statistically insignificant (79.5 vs 61.2%, p = 0.054) According to modified Clavien–Dindo classification, no statistical difference was detected between the 2 groups in terms of complication rates The postoperative pain and the need for postoperative analgesia were significantly more in standard PNL patients. Visual Analogue Score (VAS) was 7.4 and 5.2 in standard PNL and mini PNL respectively. Conclusion We compared the standard PNL and mini PNL regarding the safety and efficacy in management of large renal stones. Standard PNL achieved higher stone free rate and shorter operative time while mini PNL has the advantage of shorter hospitalization time and low incidence of postoperative complications and pain.

Clinical efficacy of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of upper urinary tract calculus (1–2.5 cm) in children ≤10 years of age

With improvements in endoscopic surgery, open surgical procedures for urinary system stones have cleared the path for the use of less invasive treatment modalities in patients with pediatric kidney stone disease. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) are among the treatment options available. To prospectively evaluate the outcomes of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for children ≤10 years of age with upper urinary tract calculus (1-2.5cm). Sixty pediatric patients with single or multiple renal stones (1-2.5cm in diameter) were collected prospectively and equally divided into two groups to undergo RIRS or mini-PCNL. The operative and postoperative outcomes of both groups were analyzed. The groups' mean ages and genders were comparable. The mean stone size for the RIRS group was 1.86cm and 1.69cm for the PCNL group (P=0.449). The PCNL group had statistically longer mean fluoroscopy and hospitalization times. The stone-free rates (SFRs) after a single procedure were 27 (90%) in the PCNL group and 25 (83.33%) in the RIRS group (P=0.706). The UAS was placed in 13 (43.33%) patients in the RIRS group. In the RIRS group, 14 (46.67%) children required preoperative DJ stent application to passively dilate the ureteric orifice. As regard post DJ stenting, 13 (46%) cases applied DJ in the mini PCNL group. major complications were observed in either group. Minor complication (Clavien 1-3) rates were 16.66% and 13.33% for the PCNL and RIRS groups, respectively. There were no differences found between the RIRS and mini-PCNL groups regarding operative time. The mean cost of RIRS was $703.96 and $537.03 for the mini-PCNL. According to the results of this study, mini-PCNL and RIRS are effective procedures for treating renal stones in children up to 2.5cm with comparable success and complication rates. Hospital stay, radiation exposure, and fluoroscopy time are significantly lower in RIRS than in the mini PCNL technique. Although RIRS is effective, a major disadvantage is the greater requirement for JJ stent insertion either before or after the procedure and the consequent need for a second procedure for removal.

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

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.

Vacuum-assisted access sheath in supine mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL)

IntroductionThe vacuum-assisted access sheath is a new device for the treatment of kidney stones with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). ObjectiveOur aim was to compare the stone-free rate (SFR) and complications between standard mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Mini-PCNL) and vacuum-assisted PCNL (Va-PCNL). MethodsRetrospective study of patients undergoing Mini-PCNL and Va-PCNL from January 2018 to June 2022. Va-PCNL was performed with a disposable sheath (ClearPetra®) with continuous high-flow irrigation and vacuum fluid dynamics for easier stone fragment removal. Baseline patient characteristics, surgical outcomes, perioperative and postoperative data were collected. We compared SFR and complications. ResultsA total of 136 patients were identified, 57 (41,9%) underwent Va-PCNL and 79 (58,15%) Mini-PCNL. Mean operative time was significantly shorter in the Va-PCNL group (95 min.) than in Mini-PCNL (146 min; P = ,001) group. The tubeless technique was performed more frequently in Va-PCNL group (61,4% vs. 34,2%; P = ,002). We did not observe any differences in postoperative complications. The mean hospital stay was significantly lower in Va-PCNL with 1,7 ± 1,9 days per patient compared with 2,7 ± 1,5 days in the Mini-PCNL group (P = ,001). There were no differences in SFR at 3 months between Va-PCNL (71,9%) and Mini-PCNL (71,8%; P =v ,848). ConclusionPatients treated with Va-PCNL had comparable results to Mini-PCNL, showing equal SFR with similar infectious complications rates. Potential benefits of Va-PCNL include shorter operative time and postoperative stay.

A Comparative Study on Outcomes of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS), Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) for Lower Pole Renal Calculi of < 1.5 cm

Background: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), established in the 1970s, has replaced open surgery for large stones. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), once the preferred first-line treatment for small-to-medium-sized renal stones, has a questionable charm owing to patient reluctance for repeated treatments and hospitalizations since ESWL has a reduced stone-free rate (SFR). Flexible ureterorenoscopy, also referred to as RIRS, originally applied in the management of lower pole stones resistant to ESWL, is increasingly being used as a primary modality to manage lower pole stones, and it may potentially achieve higher SFR than ESWL and lower morbidity than PCNL for patients with low-volume stone diseases. Objectives: Observations were made to compare ESWL, mini PCNL, and RIRS in managing lower pole renal calculi of < 1.5 cm. Methods: This observational study encompassed all patients with lower pole renal stones with < 1.5 cm diameter and < 1000 HU density who underwent mini PCNL, RIRS, or ESWL from January 2020 to July 2021. There were 40, 60, and 60 patients in the RIRS, mini PCNL, and ESWL groups, respectively, for all of whom preoperative CT urogram was performed. The patients were informed of the procedures, and their informed consent was obtained. The stone-free rates of the three modalities were compared, and the outcomes were statistically analyzed. Results: The mean stone sizes in the present study were 12.99 × 3.56 mm in mini PCNL, 10.62 × 2.51 mm in RIRS, and 10.93 × 3.13 mm in ESWL. The mini PCNL group's SFR was significantly higher than those of other groups: 59 (98.3%) in mini PCNL, 34 (85%) in RIRS, and 46 (76.7%) in ESWL (P = 0.002). Out of the 60 patients in the mini PCNL group, only one (1.7%) required an ancillary procedure, while only six (10%) out of 40 patients in the RIRS group and 11 (18.33%) out of 60 patients in the ESWL group required the ancillary procedure (P = 0.031). Conclusions: For lower pole renal calculi < 1.5 cm, mini PCNL has the highest SFR, followed by RIRS and ESWL, in sequence. The ancillary procedure rate was 18.33% in the ESWL group, which was higher than those of mini PCNL (1.7%) and RIRS (10%).

Comparison of mini-PCNL and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of kidney stone over 50 years old patients.

Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (M-PCNL) and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) are commonly used methods in treatment of kidney stones. The aim of our study is to compare the efficacy and safety of M-PCNL and RIRS in kidney stone treatment over 50 years old patients. A total of 125 patients, 65 of whom had RIRS, and 60 of whom had M-PCNL, were included in the study. Age, gender, BMI (Body-Mass Index), ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology) scores of the patients; stone size, stone location, operation side, ESWL history, HU (Hounsfield Unit) values, hospital stay durations, SFR, complication rates according to Clavien modification system, postoperative hemoglobin loss, postoperative transfusion rates, and patients who needed a secondary operation were recorded. SFR values were calculated in the postoperative third and sixth months. The data between the two groups had similar characteristics in terms of age, gender, BMI, HU, stone size, operation side, stone location, ESWL history, operation time, postoperative transfusion rate, postoperative Clavien complications (p > 0.05). When the ASA categories were evaluated, the mean ASA scores, ASA I, and ASA II data had similar characteristics in both groups (p > 0.05). When the ASA 3 scores were evaluated, the number of ASA III patients in the RIRS group was statistically significantly higher (p < 0.05). When hospital stay duration and postoperative hemoglobin loss were examined, RIRS group was found to be advantageous (p < 0.05). Postoperative third month SFR and Postoperative sixth month values were statistically significantly higher in M-PCNL group (p < 0.05). M-PCNL and RIRS are methods that can be used safely and effectively over 50 years old patients in kidney stone surgery. M-PCNL has been found to be more advantageous in terms of SFR rates and as it requires less secondary intervention. RIRS is advantageous in terms of short hospital stay, postoperative hemoglobin loss, and applicability to patients who are not suitable for the prone position.

Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of renal calculi in anomalous kidneys.

To report our single center experience in comparing mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy for management of renal stones up to 2 cm in anomalous kidneys. Records of the last 30 patients with stones less than 2 cm in anomalous kidney treated by mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy were reviewed and compared to last 30 patients treated by flexible ureterorenoscopy. Mean stone size was significantly higher in the minipercutaneous nephrolithotomy group (17.90 mm) than in flexible ureterorenoscopy group (14.97mm) (p < 0.001). Mean operative time (80.33 min vs 56.43 min) and fluoroscopy exposure time (4.49 min vs 0.84 min) were significantly higher in the mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy group than in the flexible ureterorenoscopy group (p < 0.001). The mean post-operative drop in hemoglobin concentration was significantly higher in the mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy group (0.47 gm versus 0.2 gm) (p < 0.001). Stone free rate after 12 weeks follow up was not statistically significant between the 2 groups (90% in minipercutaneous nephrolithotomy vs 80% in flexible ureterorenoscopy) (FEp = 0.472). Both modalities were found to be safe and effective for treatment of stones less than 2 cm in anomalous kidneys.

Miniaturized Ambulatory Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Flexible Ureteroscopy in the Management of Lower Calyceal Renal Stones 10-20 mm: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

To evaluate the efficacy of ambulatory mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Mini-PCNL) and flexible ureteroscope (F-URS) in treating 10-20 mm lower calyceal stones using propensity score matching analysis (PSM). A retrospective analysis of 136 adult patients that underwent Mini-PCNL or F-URS for a single lower calyx calculus. Participants that underwent F-URS were allocated to Group I, while those who underwent Mini-PCNL were assigned to Group II. Patients were discharged on the same day and followed up by CT after 3 months. Both groups were matched by stone size and density using propensity stone matching (PSM) and the matched group were further compared. Before matching, there were statistical differences in stone size (P=.02), preoperative hydronephrosis (P=.004), and Hounsfield Unit (P=.04) between both groups. A logistic regression model was created between independent variables such as stone size and density. The new groups following PSM were statistically similar in terms of age, BMI, stone size, and HFU (P=.43, P=.74, P=.49, P=.36). The stone-free rates after PSM was not significantly higher in the Mini-PCNL group than the F-URS group (91.7% vs 81.7%, respectively P=.1) while the operative time for the F-URS group was significantly shorter than the Mini-PCNL group 54 (49-64.3) minutes vs 68.2 (62-73.5) minutes, respectively, P=.045. Ambulatory Mini-PCNL and F-URS have a comparable hospital stay, stone-free rates, and complication rates for treating lower calyceal stones 10-20 mm. Both techniques may be considered acceptable treatment options, with a prolonged operative time in Mini-PCNL.

Comparison of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm.

Background:The optimal treatment for large impacted proximal ureteral stones remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and potential complications of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU) in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones with size greater than 15 mm.Methods:A total of 268 patients with impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm who received MPCNL or RPLU procedures were enrolled consecutively between January 2014 and January 2019. Data on surgical outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed.Results:Demographic and ureteral stone characteristics found between these two groups were not significantly different. The surgical success rate (139/142, 97.9% vs. 121/126, 96.0%, P = 0.595) and stone-free rate after 1 month (139/142, 97.9% vs. 119/126, 94.4%, P = 0.245) of RPLU group were marginally higher than that of the MPCNL group, but there was no significant difference. There was no significant difference in the drop of hemoglobin between the two groups (0.8 ± 0.6 vs. 0.4 ± 0. 2 g/dL, P = 0.621). The mean operative time (68.2 ± 12.5 vs. 87.2 ± 16.8 min, P = 0.041), post-operative analgesics usage (2/121, 1.7% vs. 13/139, 9.4%, P = 0.017), length of hospital stay after surgery (2.2 ± 0.6 vs. 4.8 ± 0.9 days, P < 0.001), double J stent time (3.2 ± 0.5 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8 days, P = 0.027), time of catheterization (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 3.5 ± 0.5 days, P < 0.001), and time of drainage tube (2.3 ± 0.3 vs. 4.6 ± 0.6 days, P < 0.001) of MPCNL group were significantly shorter than that of the RPLU group. The complication rate was similar between the two groups (20/121, 16.5% vs. 31/139, 22.3%, P = 0.242).Conclusions:MPCNL and RPLU have similar surgical success and stone clearance in treating impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm, while patients undergoing MPCNL had a lower post-operative pain rate and a faster recovery.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive vs. standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the surgical management of renal stones.

The present study aimed to assess current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive vs. standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the management of renal stones. A systematic search of electronic databases, which included PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library up to May 2019 was performed. Using Review Manager statistical software (version 5.3), primary outcomes, including stone-free rates (SFRs), were evaluated. Meanwhile, analysis was also performed to compare secondary outcomes, such as peri- and postoperative complications and operative data. Fourteen studies involving 1,611 patients with renal stones were analyzed based on the inclusion criteria. On the basis of the present analysis, mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) was proven to have non-inferior clinical efficacy with respect to the SFR compared with PCNL [odds ratio (OR)=1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-1.44; P=0.48]. In addition, the meta-analysis showed that MPCNL had a significantly lower hemoglobin decrease [mean difference (MD)=-0.68; 95% CI, -1.05 to -0.31; P=0.0003] and fewer blood transfusions (OR=0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.71; P=0.003) compared with PCNL. Moreover, the MPCNL group had a shorter inpatient stay (MD=-0.81; 95% CI, -1.55 to -0.08; P=0.03) compared with the PCNL group. However, the overall evidence was insufficient to suggest a statistically significant difference in the adverse event profile for MPCNL compared with PCNL. The present meta-analysis indicates that MPCNL is an effective method for treating renal stones. Compared with PCNL, MPCNL not only has similarly high SFRs but is also associated with less blood loss, fewer blood transfusions, more favorable recovery time and shorter inpatient stays. However, the findings of the present study should be further confirmed by well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials with a larger patient series.

Miniaturization of PCNL; Necessity or What?

Objective: Now a days, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the treatment of choice for retrieval of renal and proximal ureteral calculi. The primary goal of PCNL is to achieve stone free status while minimizing morbidity and complications. In recent years, the instruments used have been miniaturized in an effort to decrease morbidity associated with standard PCNL as well as increase the efficacy of stone removal. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of PCNL using different tract size. Patients and Methods: This hospital based prospective interventional study was conducted on patients with 1 to 4 cm renal stones who underwent PCNL either by Mini or by Standard PCNL technique in Chattogram Medical College Hospital and different private hospitals in Chattogram from July 2016 to October 2018. Patients aged above 12 years of age, irrespective of gender with normal renal function were evaluated to compare stone clearance, access time, fluoroscopy time for access, total operative time, need for blood transfusion, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative pain, fever, urinary leakage and other complications between two groups. Those who had previous history of open renal surgery, active urinary tract infection, renal malformation, uncorrected coagulopathy and morbid obesity were excluded. Results: A total of 78 patients were enrolled consecutively for PCNL who were divided equally into two groups randomly for minimally invasive PCNL (Mini-PCNL) and Standard PCNL. The average stone size in mini-PCNL group was 2.59±0.89 cm, and 2.66±0.97 cm in standard-PCNL group (p=0.7). Mean tract size was 18.53 ± 1.29 F (16-20) and 26.11 ± 4.61 F (24-30) respectively with P value &amp;lt;0.001. In mini-PCNL operative time was significantly longer than that of standard PCNL with 112.11 ± 20.29 vs. 98.68± 19.75 minutes respectively with p=.004. Conversely, there was an advantage of mini-PCNL over the standard one in terms of a significantly reduced hemoglobin drop (0.5 ± 0.26 vs. 0.83 ± 0.32 gm%, p value 0.001) and hospital stay (2.18 ± 0.77 vs. 3.39 ± 1.10 days, p value= 0.001), respectively though there was no statistical difference in terms of stone clearance rates between two groups (86.84% vs. 92.11%, p=0.45). There was no statistical difference in terms of visual analogue scale (VAS) score (5.55±1.54 vs. 6.24±1.6) for pain perception. The complication rate of mini-PCNL had no significant difference with that of standard PCNL (10.52% vs 12.50%, p=0.72). No statistical difference was recorded in terms of postoperative fever (eŠ38C) between two groups (2 in each group, 5.2%, p=1 Blood transfusion requirement was much less in mini PCNL group (10.52% vs. 34.2%, p=0.01). Conclusion: In addition to minimal bleeding and excellent stone clearance, mini- PCNL has several features for which it should be considered as an alternative or adjunct tostandard PCNL, URS, and ESWL. These include safe supra-costal puncture, excellent access to nearly all calyces and upper ureter, less hospital stay and suitable for large stones also. Future studies should continue to refine methods to assess complexity and safety and to determine consensus on the use of mini- PCNL. Bangladesh Journal of Urology, Vol. 23, No. 1, January 2020 p.11-16

Tract Size in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) : Does It Really Matter?

Background : Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the treatment of choice in removal of renal and proximal ureteral calculi. The primary goal of PCNL is to achieve stone free status while minimizing morbidity and complications. In recent years, the instruments used have been miniaturized in an effort to decrease morbidity associated with standard PCNL as well as increase the efficacy of stone removal. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of PCNL using different tract size.&#x0D; Materials and methods: This hospital based prospective interventional study was conducted on patients with 1 to 4 cm renal stones who underwent PCNL either by Minior Standard PCNL technique in Chattogram Medical College Hospital and different private hospitals in Chittagong from July 2016 to June 2018. Patients aged above 12 years of age, irrespective of gender with normal renal function were evaluated to compare stone clearance, total operative time, need for blood transfusion, postoperative pain and other complications. Those who had previous history of open renal surgery, active urinary tract infection, renal malformation, uncorrected coagulopathy and morbid obesity were excluded.&#x0D; Results: A total of 64 patients were enrolled consecutively for PCNL who were divided equally into two groups randomly for minimally invasive PCNL (Mini- PCNL) and Standard PCNL. The average stone size in mini-PCNL group was 2.64 ± 0.94 cm and 2.776 ± 0.97 cm in standard-PCNL group. Mean tract size was 18.44 ± 1.32 F (16-20) and 26.7 ± 5 F (24-30) respectively. In mini-PCNL operative time was significantly longer than that of standard PCNL with 110.31 ± 21.77 vs 95.94 ± 19.82 min respectively. Conversely, there was an advantage of mini-PCNL over the standard one in terms of a significantly reduced hemoglobin drop (0.5 ± 0.25 vs. 0.8 ± 0.34) gram and hospital stay (2.13 ± 0.79 vs.3.38 ± 1.13 days) respectively though there was no statistical difference in terms of stone clearance rates between two groups (86.7% vs. 93.33%). There was no statistical difference in terms of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score (5.44 ± 1.5 vs.6.19 ± 1.65) for pain perception. The complication rate of mini-PCNL had no significant difference with that of standard PCNL (10% vs 13.6%). No statistical difference was recorded in terms of postoperative fever (³38oC) between two groups (2 in each group, 6.67%, p=1). Blood transfusion requirement was much less in mini PCNL group (10% vs. 33.33%).&#x0D; Conclusion: In addition to minimal bleeding and excellent stone clearance, mini- PCNL has several features for which it should be considered as an alternative or adjunct to standard PCNL, URS and ESWL. These include safe supra-costal puncture, excellent access to nearly all calyces and upper ureter, less hospital stay and suitable for large stones also. Future studies should continue to refine methods to assess complexity and safety and to determine consensus on the use of mini- PCNL.&#x0D; Chatt Maa Shi Hosp Med Coll J; Vol.18 (2); July 2019; Page 18-22

Standard versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones: a meta-analysis.

To compare the standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in order to determine the optimal tract size for patients with renal stones. A systematic search of Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases was conducted for articles published through 20 August 2019, reporting on a comparison of the standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Of 763 studies, 14 were considered for the evidence synthesis. A total of 1980 cases were included. Of these patients, 897 cases underwent standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and 1083 cases underwent mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Stone-free rates were 87.6% (786 of 897 patients) for standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy and 87.8% (951 of 1083 patients) for mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (p = 0.57). Tract sizes of 30F and 22-26F in standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy group shorten operation time compared with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (p = 0.02; p = 0.004; respectively). Leakage (p = 0.04), bleeding (p = 0.01), blood transfusion (p < 0.00001), and renal pelvis perforation (p = 0.02) were more common in standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy group than in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. Subgroup analysis showed only blood transfusion for 30F and 22-26F standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy group was more common than mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (p < 0.0001, p = 0.005, respectively). Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy was associated with higher leakage, bleeding, blood transfusion, and renal pelvis perforation, but had a shorter operation time. Tract size of 30F improved the stone-free rate compared with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, but led to more complications. Tract size of 22-26F was no better than 30F or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

An easy risk stratification to recommend the optimal patients with 2-3cm kidney stones to receive retrograde intrarenal surgery or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

To create an easy risk stratification to recommend the optimal subset of patients with 2-3cm kidney stones to receive retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL). A retrospective patient cohort was reviewed and compared (RIRS, n = 147 and MPCNL, n = 129). Overall, RIRS group obtained a lower SFR (66% vs. 93.3%, p < 0.001) compared to MPCNL group. The RIRS group had more overall complication (12.2% vs. 8.5%) and more urosepsis (2.7% vs. 1.6%) than the MPCNL group, although there was no statistical significance. However, two patients in MPCNL group underwent embolization to treat perioperative bleeding. On multivariate analysis for RIRS group, lower calyx involved [OR 2.67], multiple calyces [OR 4.49], severe hydronephrosis [OR 2.38] were three significant predictors of SFR, which decreased from 88.8%, 70.3%, 52.1% to 25% corresponding to patients with 0, 1, 2, 3 risk predictors, respectively (p = 0.008), with a good predictive accuracy (AUC = 0.657; p = 0.002). When patients with no risk factor and patients undergoing RIRS had a similar high SFR and no possibility of bleeding, compared to matched patients undergoing MPCNL. Although generally RIRS showed a lower SFR for 2-3cm stones compared to MPCNL, our easy risk stratification can recommend the optimal subset of patients with 2-3cm kidney stones to receive RIRS or MPCNL. When these patients with no above-mentioned risk factors, RIRS can be first considered as an alternative to PCNL because it might be potentially less invasive and achieve a similar very high stone-free rate.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of URSL, RPLU, and MPCNL for treatment of large upper impacted ureteral stones: a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThere are three minimally invasive methods for the management of large upper impacted ureteral stones: mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL), transurethral ureteroscope lithotripsy (URSL), and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU). This study aimed to compare MPCNL, URSL, and RPLU, and to evaluate which one is the best choice for large upper impacted ureteral stones.MethodsBetween January 2012 and December 2015, at the Department of Urology, Huai’an First People’s Hospital, 150 consecutively enrolled patients with a large upper impacted ureteral stone (>15 mm) were included. The patients were randomly divided (1:1:1) into the MPCNL, URSL, and RPLU groups. The primary endpoint was success of stone removal measured 1 month postoperatively and the secondary endpoints were intraoperative and postoperative parameters and complications.ResultsFifteen patients needed auxiliary ESWL after URSL, and 3 patients after MPCNL, but none after RPLU. The stone clearance rate was 96% (48/50) in the MPCNL group and 72% (33/46) in the URSL group. In the RPLU group the stones were completely removed and the stone clearance rate was 100% (48/48) (P = 0.021 vs. URSL; P = 0.083 vs. MPCNL). Operation-related complications were similar among the three groups (all P > 0.05). Hospital stay was shorter in the URSL group compared with MPCNL (P = 0.003). Operation time was the shortest with URSL and the longest with MPCNL (all P < 0.05).ConclusionsMPCNL and RPUL are more suitable for upper ureteral impacted stones of >15 mm. URSL could be considered if the patient is not suitable for general anesthesia, or the patient requests transurethral uretroscopic surgery.Trial registrationThis study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration number: ChiCTR-INR-17011507; Registration date: 2017–5-22).

Treatment of renal stones in infants: comparing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy

The objective of the study is to compare the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in treating renal stones sizing 15-25 mm in infants <3 years. Forty-six infants with renal stones sizing 15-30 mm were treated by either ESWL (22 renal units in 22 infants) using Dornier compact delta lithotripter or MPCNL (25 renal units in 24 infants) using 14F-18F renal access under general anesthesia. The operation time, stone-free rate, re-treatment rate, and complications between the two groups were compared with the χ(2), Mann-Whitney U, and Student's t tests. No significant differences in mean age and stone size were observed between the two groups. The 1- and 3-month postoperative stone-free rates were 84 and 96% in MPCNL group and were 31.8 and 86.4% in ESWL group. The re-treatment and complication rates were significantly higher in ESWL group than in MPCNL group (50 vs. 12%, P = 0.004; 16.0 vs. 45.5%, P = 0.028). The stone recurrence rate was similar between the two groups. No significant changes of serum creatinine (Cr) level and glomerular filtration rate were observed in both groups. In conclusion, MPCNL is an effective and feasible alternative monotherapy for large renal stones (15-25 mm) in infants, with a higher stone-free rate and a lower complication rate when compared with ESWL.