Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for stones in anomalous-kidneys: a prospective study
Affiliations
Affiliations
- Endourologists, Vayodah and Venus International Hospitals, Kathmandu, Nepal.
- Vayodah and Venus International Hospitals, Kathmandu, Nepal.
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Kathmandu Medical College, Kathmandu, Nepal.
- Urology Department, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt.
- Urology Department, Kasr Al-Ainy Hospitals, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. mohammedshemy@yahoo.com.
- Kuwait University, Kuwait, Kuwait.
To evaluate safety and efficacy of minipercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Mini-PNL) in management of stones in different types of renal anomalies. Patients with stones ≥2 cm or SWL-resistant stones in anomalous-kidneys treated by Mini-PNL between March 2010 and September 2012 were included prospectively. Mini-PNL was done under regional anesthesia in prone position with fluoroscopic guidance through 18 Fr sheath using semirigid ureteroscope (8.5/11.5 Fr) and pneumatic lithotripter. All patients were followed-up for 2-3 years. Stone-free rate was defined as absence of residual fragments ≥2 mm. Student-T, Mann-Whitney, Chi square (χ 2), Fisher-exact, one way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test were used for analysis. Mini-PNL was performed for 59 patients (20 horseshoe, 15 malrotated, 7 polycystic, 13 duplex and 4 ectopic pelvic-kidneys). Mean age was 40.18 ± 12.75 (14-78) years. Mean stone burden was 31.72 ± 21.43 (7.85-141.3) mm2. Two tracts were required in 7 (11.9 %) patients. Tubeless Mini-PNL with double-J insertion was performed in all patients except two. Operative time was 50.17 ± 18.73 (15-105) min. Hemoglobin loss was 0.44 ± 0.30 (0-1.4) g/dL. Complications were reported in 15 (25.4 %) patients. No pleural injury, sepsis, perinephric-collection or renal-pelvis perforation were reported. Stone-free rate was 89.8 % (converted to open-surgery in one patient, second-look PNL in two patients, auxiliary SWL in three patients). Stone-free rate improved to 98.3 % after retreatment and auxiliary SWL. Site of puncture was mostly upper calyceal in horseshoe-kidney (80 %), mid calyceal in polycystic-kidney (85.7 %) and lower calyceal in duplex-kidney (46.2 %). Punctures were also significantly infracostal in horseshoe-kidney (100 %) and supracostal in both duplex (53.8 %) and malrotated-kidneys (66.7 %). Mini-PNL is safe for management of stones in anomalous-kidney with SFR comparable to standard-PNL but with less complications.
Keywords: Anomalous kidney; Horseshoe kidney; Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Polycystic kidney; Renal stones.
Similar articles
Mini vs standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones: a comparative study.
ElSheemy MS, Elmarakbi AA, Hytham M, Ibrahim H, Khadgi S, Al-Kandari AM.Urolithiasis. 2019 Apr;47(2):207-214. doi: 10.1007/s00240-018-1055-9. Epub 2018 Mar 16.PMID: 29549382
ElSheemy MS, Ghoneima W, Elmarakbi AA, Al-Kandari AM, Ibrahim H, Shrestha S, Khadgi S.Urology. 2018 Oct;120:62-67. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.07.015. Epub 2018 Jul 20.PMID: 30031834
Fan J, Zhang T, Zhu W, Gurioli A, Ketegwe IR, Zeng G.Urolithiasis. 2019 Jun;47(3):297-301. doi: 10.1007/s00240-018-1068-4. Epub 2018 Jun 15.PMID: 29947994
Ruhayel Y, Tepeler A, Dabestani S, MacLennan S, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Türk C, Yuan Y, Knoll T.Eur Urol. 2017 Aug;72(2):220-235. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.046. Epub 2017 Feb 23.PMID: 28237786 Review.
Silay MS, Ellison JS, Tailly T, Caione P.Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Apr;3(2-3):164-171. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.07.005. Epub 2017 Aug 9.PMID: 28802643 Review.
Cited by
Outcome of Mini-PCNL Under Loco-Regional Anesthesia: Outcomes of a Systematic Review.
Shahait M, Farkouh A, Mucksavage P, Somani B.Curr Urol Rep. 2023 Sep;24(9):417-426. doi: 10.1007/s11934-023-01169-2. Epub 2023 Jul 7.PMID: 37418069 Review.
Kalatharan V, Jandoc R, Grewal G, Nash DM, Welk B, Sarma S, Pei Y, Garg AX.Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2020 Jul 22;7:2054358120940433. doi: 10.1177/2054358120940433. eCollection 2020.PMID: 32754344 Free PMC article. Review.
KMEL References
References
-
- J Endourol. 2007 May;21(5):520-4 - PubMed
-
- J Endourol. 2001 Dec;15(10 ):989-91 - PubMed
-
- J Urol. 1999 Sep;162(3 Pt 1):674-7 - PubMed
-
- Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2005 Feb;15(1):41-3 - PubMed
-
- J Endourol. 2000 Apr;14 (3):289-92 - PubMed
-
- J Urol. 2001 Jul;166(1):209-10 - PubMed
-
- Urology. 2003 Jul;62(1):10-5; discussion 15-6 - PubMed
-
- J Urol. 1985 Jul;134(1):110-2 - PubMed
-
- J Endourol. 2011 Oct;25(10):1627-32 - PubMed
-
- J Endourol. 1996 Feb;10 (1):13-5 - PubMed
-
- Urology. 2004 Sep;64(3):426-9 - PubMed
-
- J Urol. 2011 May;185(5):1737-41 - PubMed
-
- Curr Opin Urol. 2007 Mar;17(2):125-31 - PubMed
-
- Urology. 2009 Apr;73(4):710-4; discussion 714-5 - PubMed
-
- Urology. 2010 May;75(5):1049-52 - PubMed
-
- Urol Res. 2006 Oct;34(5):291-8 - PubMed
-
- J Endourol. 2007 Oct;21(10):1131-6 - PubMed
-
- Urol Int. 2007;78(3):214-8 - PubMed
-
- J Urol. 2003 Jul;170(1):48-51 - PubMed
-
- J Urol. 2002 Jul;168(1):5-8 - PubMed
-
- J Endourol. 1999 Mar;13(2):93-7 - PubMed
-
- Int J Urol. 2004 Oct;11(10):831-6 - PubMed
-
- J Endourol. 1994 Jun;8(3):179-81 - PubMed
-
- Urology. 2006 Mar;67(3):513-7 - PubMed
-
- J Endourol. 2009 Apr;23 (4):609-14 - PubMed
-
- J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1998 Dec;8(6):431-5 - PubMed
-
- J Urol. 1991 Mar;145(3):481-3 - PubMed
-
- J Endourol. 2008 Jun;22(6):1219-25 - PubMed