Mini vs standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones: a comparative study
Affiliations
Affiliations
- Urology department, Kasr Al-Ainy Hospitals, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. mohammedshemy@yahoo.com.
- Urology Department, Bani Swaif University, Bani Swaif, Egypt.
- Urology department, Kasr Al-Ainy Hospitals, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
- Urology Department, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt.
- Vayodah and Venus International Hospitals, Kathmandu, Nepal.
- Urology Department, Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
To compare the outcome of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Mini-PNL) versus standard-PNL for renal stones. Retrospective study was performed between March 2010 and May 2013 for patients treated by Mini-PNL or standard-PNL through 18 and 30 Fr tracts, respectively, using pneumatic lithotripsy. Semirigid ureteroscope (8.5/11.5 Fr) was used for Mini-PNL and 24 Fr nephroscope for standard-PNL. Both groups were compared in stone free rate(SFR), complications and operative time using Student-t, Mann-Whitney, Chi square or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate in addition to logistic regression analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Mini-PNL (378) and standard-PNL (151) were nearly comparable in patients and stones criteria including stone burden (3.77 ± 2.21 vs 3.77 ± 2.43 cm2; respectively). There was no significant difference in number of tracts or supracostal puncture. Mini-PNL had longer operative time (68.6 ± 29.09 vs 60.49 ± 11.38 min; p = 0.434), significantly shorter hospital stay (2.43 ± 1.46 vs 4.29 ± 1.28 days) and significantly higher rate of tubeless PNL (75.1 vs 4.6%). Complications were significantly higher in standard-PNL (7.9 vs 20.5%; p < 0.001). SFR was significantly lower in Mini-PNL (89.9 vs 96%; p = 0.022). This significant difference was found with multiple stones and large stone burden (> 2 cm2), but the SFR was comparable between both groups with single stone or stone burden ≤ 2 cm. Logistic regression analysis confirmed significantly higher complications and SFR with standard-PNL but with significantly shorter operative time. Mini-PNL has significantly lower SFR when compared to standard-PNL (but clinically comparable) with markedly reduced complications and hospital stay. Most of cases can be performed tubeless. The significant difference in SFR was found with multiple stones or large stone burden (> 2 cm2), but not with single stones or stone burden ≤ 2 cm2.
Keywords: Mini-PNL; Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Miniperc; Percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Renal stones.
Similar articles
Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for stones in anomalous-kidneys: a prospective study.
Khadgi S, Shrestha B, Ibrahim H, Shrestha S, ElSheemy MS, Al-Kandari AM.Urolithiasis. 2017 Aug;45(4):407-414. doi: 10.1007/s00240-016-0926-1. Epub 2016 Oct 4.PMID: 27704184
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
Güler A, Erbin A, Ucpinar B, Savun M, Sarilar O, Akbulut MF.Urolithiasis. 2019 Jun;47(3):289-295. doi: 10.1007/s00240-018-1061-y. Epub 2018 Jun 1.PMID: 29858913 Clinical Trial.
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.
Sharma G, Sharma A, Devana SK, Singh SK.Eur Urol Focus. 2022 Sep;8(5):1376-1385. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.07.014. Epub 2021 Aug 14.PMID: 34404619 Review.
Cited by
Which position is more advantageous for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: supine or prone?
Kucukyangoz M, Gucuk A.Urolithiasis. 2023 Aug 14;51(1):102. doi: 10.1007/s00240-023-01474-y.PMID: 37578662
Zhu S, Fan Y, Hu X, Shao M.Front Surg. 2023 Apr 18;10:1121424. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1121424. eCollection 2023.PMID: 37143773 Free PMC article.
Wan C, Wang D, Xiang J, Yang B, Xu J, Zhou G, Zhou Y, Zhao Y, Zhong J, Liu J.Urolithiasis. 2022 Oct;50(5):523-533. doi: 10.1007/s00240-022-01349-8. Epub 2022 Aug 11.PMID: 35953608 Free PMC article. Review.
Gui H, Wang H, Kaushik D, Rodriguez R, Wang Z.Front Surg. 2022 Jul 11;9:773270. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.773270. eCollection 2022.PMID: 35898587 Free PMC article.
Zhang H, Xu H, Fei K, Guo D, Duan Y.BMC Urol. 2022 Jul 2;22(1):94. doi: 10.1186/s12894-022-01046-z.PMID: 35780099 Free PMC article.
KMEL References
References
-
- Eur Urol. 2001 Dec;40(6):619-24 - PubMed
-
- J Urol. 2002 Oct;168(4 Pt 1):1348-51 - PubMed
-
- Eur Urol. 2007 Mar;51(3):810-4; discussion 815 - PubMed
-
- J Endourol. 2008 Sep;22(9):2147-51 - PubMed
-
- Urology. 2010 Jan;75(1):56-61 - PubMed
-
- J Endourol. 2010 Jul;24(7):1075-9 - PubMed
-
- Urol Res. 2011 Apr;39(2):117-22 - PubMed
-
- J Endourol. 2010 Oct;24(10):1579-82 - PubMed
-
- BJU Int. 2011 Sep;108(6):896-9; discussion 899-900 - PubMed
-
- J Endourol. 2011 Jun;25(6):933-9 - PubMed
-
- J Endourol. 2011 Aug;25(8):1281-6 - PubMed
-
- Urology. 2013 Feb;81(2):241-5 - PubMed
-
- World J Urol. 2014 Oct;32(5):1275-80 - PubMed
-
- Urolithiasis. 2015 Nov;43(6):563-70 - PubMed
-
- Scand J Urol. 2016 Jun;50(3):212-5 - PubMed
-
- Urolithiasis. 2017 Dec;45(6):585-589 - PubMed
-
- Acta Physiol Scand. 1988 Oct;134(2):223-34 - PubMed
-
- Urology. 1998 Oct;52(4):697-701 - PubMed