Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of super-mini PCNL (SMP) versus Miniperc for stones larger than 2 cm: a propensity score-matching study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the efficacy and safety of Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP, F12-F14) and Miniperc (F18) in the treatment of renal stones of 2–4 cm in size.

Methods

A prospective comparative analysis of outcomes of patients who underwent SMP and Miniperc for treatment of 2–4 cm renal stones was conducted between July 2014 and January 2017. Demographic data, stone criteria, operative technique, complications, blood transfusion, hemoglobin decrease, stone-free rate (SFR) and length of hospital stay were compared between the two groups. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was performed to further compare the outcomes between the two groups.

Results

79 and 257 patients underwent SMP and Miniperc, respectively. After matching, 73 patients in each group were included. The stone burden was comparable for both groups (3.0 ± 1.1 vs 3.2 ± 0.7 cm, p = 0.577). Mean operation time was not significant different between two groups (p = 0.115), while the hospital stay of SMP was much shorter than Miniperc (2.6 ± 1.4 vs 5.2 ± 1.8, p < 0.0001). Both groups had similar SFRs in postoperative 1 day and at 1 month follow-up (p = 0.326, p = 0.153), while SMP achieved a markedly higher tubeless rate than Miniperc (84.9 vs 47.9%, p < 0.0001). The total complication rate was significantly lower in SMP (16.4 vs 41.1%, p = 0.0001), and the SIRS rate was markedly lower in SMP group (1.4 vs 12.3%, p = 0.009).

Conclusions

SMP is equally effective as Miniperc in the treatment of moderate renal calculi, and has the significant advantage in hospital duration and tubeless rate.

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

References

  1. Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K et al (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69(3):475–482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ozturk U, Sener NC, Goktug HN, Nalbant I, Gucuk A, Imamoglu MA (2013) Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, shock wave lithotripsy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi 10–20 mm. Urol Int 91(3):345–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. De S, Autorino R, Kim FJ et al (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67(1):125–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Seitz M, Sharma R, Stief CG, Desai M (2011) The “all-seeing needle”: initial results of an optical puncture system confirming access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 59(6):1054–1059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dede O, Sancaktutar AA, Dagguli M, Utangac M, Bas O, Penbegul N (2015) Ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric nephrolithiasis: both low pressure and high efficiency. J Pediatr Urol 11(5): 253 e251-256

  6. Desai J, Zeng G, Zhao Z, Zhong W, Chen W, Wu W (2013) A novel technique of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: introduction and an initial experience for treatment of upper urinary calculi less than 2 cm. Biomed Res Int 2013:490793

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Silay MS, Tepeler A, Atis G et al (2013) Initial report of microperc in the treatment of pediatric nephrolithiasis. J Pediatr Surg 48(7):1578–1583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ganpule AP, Bhattu AS, Desai M (2015) PCNL in the twenty-first century: role of microperc, miniperc, and ultraminiperc. World J Urol 33(2):235–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Abdelhafez MF, Wendt-Nordahl G, Kruck S et al (2016) Minimally invasive versus conventional large-bore percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of large-sized renal calculi: surgeon’s preference? Scand J Urol 50(3):212–215

    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):896–899 (discussion 899–900)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sabnis RB, Ganesamoni R, Sarpal R (2012) Miniperc: what is its current status? Curr Opin Urol 22(2):129–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu Y, Wu W, Tuerxun A et al (2017) Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of pediatric nephrolithiasis: evaluation of the initial results. J Endourol 31(S1):S38–S42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zeng G, Wan S, Zhao Z et al (2016) Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP): a new concept in technique and instrumentation. BJU Int 117(4):655–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zeng G, Zhu W, Liu Y, Fan J, Zhao Z, Cai C (2017) The new generation super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) system: a step-by-step guide. BJU Int 120(5):735–738

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K et al (2008) Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 53(1):184–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bandi G, Best SL, Nakada SY (2008) Current practice patterns in the management of upper urinary tract calculi in the north central United States. J Endourol 22(4):631–636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Knoll T, Wezel F, Michel MS, Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G (2010) Do patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? J Endourol 24(7):1075–1079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yamaguchi A, Skolarikos A, Buchholz NP et al (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 25(6):933–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sabnis RB, Ganesamoni R, Doshi A, Ganpule AP, Jagtap J, Desai MR (2013) Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of small renal calculi: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 112(3):355–361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Datta SN, Solanki R, Desai J (2016) Prospective outcomes of ultra mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a consecutive cohort study. J Urol 195(3):741–746

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Giusti G, Piccinelli A, Taverna G et al (2007) Miniperc? No, thank you! Eur Urol 51(3):810–814 (discussion 815)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Guohua Z, Wen Z, Xun L et al (2007) The influence of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy on renal pelvic pressure in vivo. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 17(4):307–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Istanbulluoglu MO, Ozturk B, Gonen M, Cicek T, Ozkardes H (2009) Effectiveness of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients: a prospective randomized study. Int Urol Nephrol 41(3):541–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was financed by Grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 81370804 and 81670643), Guangzhou Science Technology and Innovation Commission (Nos. 201604020001, 201607010162 and 201704020193).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yang Liu, Jad AlSmadi, and Wei Zhu have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, China

    Yang Liu, Jad AlSmadi, Wei Zhu, Yongda Liu, Wenqi Wu, Junhong Fan, Yu Lan, Wen Zhong & Guohua Zeng

  2. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Wayne Lam

Authors
  1. Yang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jad AlSmadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wei Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yongda Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wenqi Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Junhong Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yu Lan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wayne Lam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Wen Zhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Guohua Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GZ, JA Project development, WZ, YL, WW Data collection or management, JF, YL, WZ Data analysis, YL Manuscript writing, WL Manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guohua Zeng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Y., AlSmadi, J., Zhu, W. et al. Comparison of super-mini PCNL (SMP) versus Miniperc for stones larger than 2 cm: a propensity score-matching study. World J Urol 36, 955–961 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2197-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2197-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation