Advertisement

Urolithiasis

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 225–229 | Cite as

Treatment of upper urinary calculi with Chinese minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a single-center experience with 12,482 consecutive patients over 20 years

  • Guohua Zeng
  • Zanlin Mai
  • Zhijian Zhao
  • Xun Li
  • Wen Zhong
  • Jian Yuan
  • Kaijun Wu
  • Wenqi Wu
Original Paper

Abstract

The Chinese minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) was a modified version of standard PCNL which utilizes smaller tract and sheaths. The aim of this study was to present our experience on its efficacy and safety, and to grade its complications according to the modified Clavien classification. Between 1992 and 2011, 12,482 patients who underwent 13,984 MPCNL procedures entered this study. Data on stone size, access number, operative time, hospital length of stay, stone-free rate (SFR), and complications according to the modified clavien system were evaluated prospectively. Their mean age of patients was 47.6 years (range 0.6–93). The mean stone size was 3.2 ± 0.8 (1.4–7.4) cm. The mean operative time was 83 ± 38 min. Mean hemoglobin drop was 13.5 ± 11.3 g/L. Mean hospital stay was 10.3 ± 6.4 days (2–22 days). The initial SFR after first procedure was 78.6 %. In 14.7 % of cases with a second look, the SFR increase to 89.9 %. At 3 months after auxiliary procedures (re-PCNL, ureterorenoscopy, and shock wave lithotripsy), the overall SFR was achieved to 94.8 %. A total of 3,624 complications (25.92 %) were observed in 2,591 (18.53 %) procedures. There were 2,355 grade I (16.84 %), 706 grade II (5.05 %), 553 grade III (3.95 %), 7 grade IV (0.05 %), and three death of grade V (0.02 %) complications. This large-scale, contemporary analysis confirms MPCNL is still a safe and efficacious treatment option of kidney stones with a high stone-free rate and uncommon rate of high grade complications.

Keywords

Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy Urolithiasis Complications Stone free rate Modified Clavien system 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from National Natural Science Foundation, China (No. 81170652) and Science and Technology Education Department of the Ministry of Health, China (No. 201002010).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.

References

  1. 1.
    Jackman SV, Docimo SG, Cadeddu JA et al (1998) The “mini-perc” technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 16(6):371–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mishra S, Sharma R, Garg C et al (2011) Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int 108(6):896–899PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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):1075–1079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheng F, Yu W, Zhang X et al (2010) Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones. J Endourol 24(10):1579–1582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li X, He Z, Wu K, Li SK et al (2009) Chinese minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the Guangzhou experience. J Endourol 23(10):1693–1697PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M (2011) The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study—indications, complications, and outcomes in 5,803 patients. J Endourol 25(1):11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Desai M, De Lisa A, Turna B et al (2011) The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study staghorn versus nonstaghorn stones. J Endourol 25(8):1263–1268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Michel MS, Trojan L et al (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51(4):899–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seitz C, Desai M, Häcker A et al (2012) Incidence, prevention, and management of complications following percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Eur Urol 61(1):146–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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):184–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Falahatkar S, Moghaddam KG, Kazemnezhad E (2011) Factors affecting operative time during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: our experience with the complete supine position. J Endourol 25(12):1831–1836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wolf JS Jr, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR et al (2008) Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol 179(4):1379–1390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marberger M (1994) Percutaneous renal surgery: its role in stone management. In: Krane RJ, Sirolky MB, Fitzpatrick JM (eds) Clinical Urology. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 254–256Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    de la Rosette JJ, Opondo D, Daels FP et al (2012) Categorisation of complications and validation of the Clavien score for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 62(2):246–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guohua Zeng
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zanlin Mai
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhijian Zhao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xun Li
    • 2
    • 3
  • Wen Zhong
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jian Yuan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kaijun Wu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wenqi Wu
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery CenterThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Guangdong Key Laboratory of UrologyGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Department of UrologyThe Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations