Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mini vs standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones: a comparative study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

PUT:

Plain abdominal radiography

Mini-PNL:

Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy

NCCT:

Non-contrast computed tomography scan

PCN:

Percutaneous nephrostomy

PNL:

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy

SFR:

Stone free rate

Standard-PNL:

Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy

SWL:

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy

US:

Abdominal ultrasonography

References

  1. Türk C, Neisius A, Petrik A, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Tepeler A, Thomas K, Dabestani S, Drake T, Grivas N, Ruhayel Y (2017) EAU guidelines on urolithiasis [online]. http://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/. Accessed date 24 Mar 2017

  2. Yamaguchi A, Skolarikos A, Buchholz NP, Chomón GB, Grasso M, Saba P, Nakada S, de la Rosette J; Clinical Research Office Of The Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Study Group (2011). Operating times and bleeding complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparison of tract dilation methods in 5,537 patients in the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study. J Endourol Jun;25(6):933–939. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0606 (Epub 2011 May 13)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jackman SV, Hedican SP, Peters CA, Docimo SG (1998) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants and preschool age children: experience with a new technique. Urology 52(4):697–701

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lahme S, Bichler KH, Strohmaier WL, Gotz T (2001) Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stones. Eur Urol 40(6):619–624

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Giusti G, Piccinelli A, Taverna G, Benetti A, Pasini L, Corinti M, Teppa A, Zandegiacomo De Zorzi S, Graziotti P (2007) Miniperc?. No, thank you! Eur Urol 51(3):810–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.07.047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Knoll T, Wezel F, Michel MS, Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G (2010) Do patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? A comparative prospective study. J Endourol 24(7):1075–1079. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Li L, Gao X, Yang M, Li J, Zhang H, Xu W, Lin Z (2010) Does a smaller tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy contribute to less invasiveness? A prospective comparative study. Urology 75(1):56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cheng F, Yu W, Zhang X, Yang S, Xia Y, Ruan Y (2010) Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones. J Endourol 24(10):1579–1582. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhong W, Zeng G, Wu W, Chen W, Wu K (2011) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy with multiple mini tracts in a single session in treating staghorn calculi. Urol Res 39(2):117–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0308-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mishra S, Sharma R, Garg C, Kurien A, Sabnis R, Desai M (2011) Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int 108(6):896–900. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Song L, Chen Z, Liu T, Zhong J, Qin W, Guo S, Peng Z, Hu M, Du C, Zhu L, Yao L, Yang Z, Huang J, Xie D (2011) The application of a patented system to minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 25(8):1281–1286. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Xu S, Shi H, Zhu J, Wang Y, Cao Y, Li K, Wang Y, Sun Z, Xia S (2014) A prospective comparative study of haemodynamic, electrolyte, and metabolic changes during percutaneous nephrolithotomy and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 32(5):1275–1280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1204-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhu W, Liu Y, Liu L, Lei M, Yuan J, Wan SP, Zeng G (2015) Minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis Nov 43(6):563–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0808-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Abdelhafez MF, Wendt-Nordahl G, Kruck S, Mager R, Stenzl A, Knoll T, Schilling D (2016) Minimally invasive versus conventional large-bore percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of large-sized renal calculi: Surgeon’s preference? Scand J Urol Jun 50(3):212–215. https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2016.1155078 (Epub 2016 Mar 24)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sakr A, Salem E, Kamel M, Desoky E, Ragab A, Omran M, Fawzi A, Shahin A (2017) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs standard PCNL for management of renal stones in the flank-free modified supine position: single-center experience. Urolithiasis Feb 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0966-1 (Epub ahead of print)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hinman F, Redewill FH (1926) Pyelovenous back flow. JAMA 87:1287–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhong W, Zeng G, Wu K, Li X, Chen W, Yang H (2008) Does a smaller tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy contribute to high renal pelvicpressure and postoperative fever? J Endourol 22(9):2147–2151. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stenberg A, Bohman SO, Morsing P, Müller-Suur C, Olsen L, Persson AE (1988) Back-leak of pelvic urine to the bloodstream. Acta Physiol Scand Oct 134(2):223–234

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Troxel SA, Low RK (2002) Renal intrapelvic pressure during percutaneous nephrolithotomy and its correlation with the development of postoperative fever. J Urol Oct 168:1348–1351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Abdelhafez MF, Amend B, Bedke J et al (2013) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparative study of the management of small and large renal stones. Urology 81(2):241–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.09.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology department, Kasr Al-Ainy Hospitals, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

    Mohammed S. ElSheemy & Mohammed Hytham

  2. Urology Department, Bani Swaif University, Bani Swaif, Egypt

    Akram A. Elmarakbi

  3. Urology Department, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt

    Hamdy Ibrahim

  4. Vayodah and Venus International Hospitals, Kathmandu, Nepal

    Sanjay Khadgi

  5. Urology Department, Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait

    Ahmed M. Al-Kandari

Authors
  1. Mohammed S. ElSheemy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Akram A. Elmarakbi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammed Hytham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hamdy Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sanjay Khadgi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ahmed M. Al-Kandari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ElSheemy: Protocol/project development, data collection and management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. Elmarakbi: Protocol/project development, data collection and management. Hytham: Protocol/project development, data collection. Hamdy Ibrahim: Protocol/project development, data collection. Khadgi: Protocol/project development, data collection and management. Al-Kandari: Protocol/project development, data collection and management.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammed S. ElSheemy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. No funding source or industrial links and affiliations.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the local ethical committee.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all the individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

ElSheemy, M.S., Elmarakbi, A.A., Hytham, M. et al. Mini vs standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones: a comparative study. Urolithiasis 47, 207–214 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1055-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1055-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation