Advertisement

Urolithiasis

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 201–206 | Cite as

The “all-seeing needle” micro-PCNL versus flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm

  • Kehua Jiang
  • Hongbo Chen
  • Xiao Yu
  • Zhiqiang Chen
  • Zhangqun Ye
  • Huixing YuanEmail author
Original Paper
  • 188 Downloads

Abstract

The objectives of the study are to compare the safety and efficacy of “all-seeing needle” optical puncture system micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (micro-PCNL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) for the treatment of lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm and to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each. 116 patients in total with lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm were randomly divided into two equal groups, “all-seeing needle” optical puncture system micro-PCNL and FURS. In both groups, holmium laser was utilized for lithotripsy. The perioperative parameters were compared between the two groups. Compared to the “all-seeing needle” micro-PCNL group, the mean operative time was significantly longer in the FURS group (P = 0.000). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to mean hemoglobin reduction (P = 0.087), complications (P = 0.731) and LOS (P = 0.856). The overall SFR of the “all-seeing needle” micro-PCNL group and FURS group was 84.5% (49/58) and 79.3% (46/58), respectively, without any significant difference between the groups (P = 0.469). For treating lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm, the “all-seeing needle” micro-PCNL group had shorter operative time than FURS, while no significant differences between the two groups with respect to mean hemoglobin reduction, complications, LOS and SFR were found.

Keywords

All-seeing needle Optical puncture system Micro-PCNL FURS Lower calyceal stones 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Najib Isse Dirie for his language modification as a native speaker.

Funding

This study was funded by the Hubei Province Health and Family Planning Scientific Research Project (Grant Number WJ2017M257) and the Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province of China (Grant Number 2017CFB516, 2017CFB638).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that no conflict of interests exists.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

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

References

  1. 1.
    Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69(3):475–482Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, Denstedt JD, Grasso M, Gutierrez-Aceves J, Kahn RI, Leveillee RJ, Lingeman JE, Macaluso JN Jr, Munch LC, Nakada SY, Newman RC, Pearle MS, Preminger GM, Teichman J, Woods JR (2001) Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol 166(6):2072–2080Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Obek C, Onal B, Kantay K, Kalkan M, Yalçin V, Oner A, Solok V, N. T (2001) The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for isolated lower pole calculi compared with isolated middle and upper caliceal calculi. J Urol 166(6):2081–2084Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ganpule AP, Vijayakumar M, Malpani A, Desai MR (2016) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) a critical review. Int J Surg 36(Pt D):660–664Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seitz C, Desai M, Hacker A, Hakenberg OW, Liatsikos E, Nagele U, Tolley D (2012) Incidence, prevention, and management of complications following percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Eur Urol 61(1):146–158Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ (2012) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10–20 mm. BJU international 110(6):898–902Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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):1054–1059Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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):355–361Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kandemir A, Guven S, Balasar M, Sonmez MG, Taskapu H, Gurbuz R (2017) A prospective randomized comparison of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower pole kidney stones. World J Urol 35(11):1771–1776Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alsyouf M, Arenas JL, Smith JC, Myklak K, Faaborg D, Jang M, Olgin G, Lehrman E, Baldwin DD (2016) Direct endoscopic visualization combined with ultrasound guided access during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a feasibility study and comparison to a conventional cohort. J Urol 196(1):227–233Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saad KSM, Youssif ME, Hamdy SAIN., Fahmy A, El Din Hanno AG, El-Nahas AR (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for large renal stones in pediatric patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Urol 194(6):1716–1720Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M (2014) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 24(11):CD007044Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    De SAR, Kim FJ, Zargar H, Laydner H, Balsamo R, Torricelli FC, Di Palma C, Molina WR, Monga M, De Sio M (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67(1):125–137Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pan J, Chen Q, Xue W, Chen Y, Xia L, Chen H, Huang Y (2013) RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2–3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting. Urolithiasis 41(1):73–78Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiremit MC, Guven S, Sarica K, Ozturk A, Buldu I, Kafkasli A, Balasar M, Istanbulluoglu O, Horuz R, Cetinel CA, Kandemir A, Albayrak S (2015) Contemporary management of medium-sized (10–20 mm) renal stones: a retrospective multicenter observational study. J Endourol 29(7):838–843Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ozturk U, Sener NC, Goktug HNG, 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):345–349Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaynar M, Sumer A, Salvarci A, Tekinarslan E, Cenker A, Istanbulluoglu MO (2013) Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) in a two-year-old with the “all-seeing needle”. Urol Int 91(2):239–241Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sabnis RB, Ganesamoni R, Sarpal R (2012) Miniperc: what is its current status? Curr Opin Urol 22(2):129–133Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y, Can CE, Unsal A (2011) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol 25(7):1131–1135Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kirac M, Bozkurt OF, Tunc L, Guneri C, Unsal A, Biri H (2013) Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of smaller than 15 mm. Urolithiasis 41(3):241–246Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hyams E, Munver R, Bird V, Uberoi J, Shah O (2010) Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2 to 3 cm: a multi-institutional experience. J Endourol 24(10):1583–1588Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Das MK, Jha SK (2015) A prospective randomized comparison between shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower caliceal stones ≤ 2 cm: a single-center experience. J Endourol 29(5):575–579Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mishra SSR, 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):896–899Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Landman J, Lee DI, Lee C, Monga M (2003) Evaluation of overall costs of currently available small flexible ureteroscopes. Urology 62(2):218–222Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kehua Jiang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hongbo Chen
    • 2
  • Xiao Yu
    • 1
  • Zhiqiang Chen
    • 1
  • Zhangqun Ye
    • 1
  • Huixing Yuan
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical CollegeHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.Department of UrologyThe Central Hospital of Enshi Autonomous PrefectureEnshiChina

Personalised recommendations