To compare outcomes of a single middle calyx access (MCA) with a single upper or lower calyceal access in mini-PCNL. From May 2015 through August 2018, patients’ files who underwent a single renal access mini-PCNL were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent fluoroscopic-guided access (16–20 F) in the prone position. They were categorized into group 1 (MCA) and group 2 (either upper or lower calyceal access). Compared preoperative items included stone location, size, number and complexity (according to Guy’s score). The compared outcome parameters were complication and stone-free rates. The study comprised 512 consecutive patients, 374 patients in group 1 and 138 in group 2. A single MCA was utilized to access 95% of proximal ureteral calculi, 89% for ureteropelvic junction stones, and 84% for stones present in the pelvicalyceal system and ureter. MCA was used in 89% of complete staghorn stones and 73% of multiple stones. the Stone-free rates (93% vs 90.6%, P = 0.350) and the complications rates (8% vs 7.2%, P = 0.772) were comparable between group 1 and 2 despite that MCA was used for most cases with complex stones. Complications severity were also comparable (P = 0.579). Mini-PCNL performed through a single MCA is effective and safe. This access can be used for the treatment of renal and upper ureteral calculi of different complexities and locations.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Al-Terki A, Khadgi S, El-Nahas A, Darrad M (2019) Middle calyx access in mini-PCNL: the universal access. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14748
Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, Pace KT, Pais VM Jr, Pearle MS, Preminger GM, Razvi H, Shah O, Matlaga BR (2016) Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline. PART II. J Urol 196(4):1161–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.091
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):475–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041
Hassan M, El-Nahas AR, Sheir KZ, El-Tabey NA, El-Assmy AM, Elshal AM, Shokeir AA (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for treating a 20–30 mm single renal pelvic stone. Arab J Urol 13(3):212–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2015.04.002
Bryniarski P, Paradysz A, Zyczkowski M, Kupilas A, Nowakowski K, Bogacki R (2012) A randomized controlled study to analyze the safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the management of renal stones more than 2 cm in diameter. J Endourol 26(1):52–57. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0235
De S, Autorino R, 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):125–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.003
de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M, Gutierrez J, Lingeman J, Scarpa R, Tefekli A (2011) The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 25(1):11–17. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0424
Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S, Bapat S, Desai M (2004) Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study. J Endourol 18(8):715–722. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2004.18.715
Lahme S (2018) Miniaturisation of PCNL. Urolithiasis 46(1):99–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1029-3
Helal M, Black T, Lockhart J, Figueroa TE (1997) The Hickman peel-away sheath: alternative for pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 11(3):171–172. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1997.11.171
ElSheemy MS, Elmarakbi AA, Hytham M, Ibrahim H, Khadgi S, Al-Kandari AM (2018) Mini vs standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones: a comparative study. Urolithiasis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1055-9
Kukreja RA (2018) Should mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MiniPNL/Miniperc) be the ideal tract for medium-sized renal calculi (15–30 mm)? World J Urol 36(2):285–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2128-z
Ruhayel Y, Tepeler A, Dabestani S, MacLennan S, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Turk C, Yuan Y, Knoll T (2017) Tract sizes in miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review from the European association of urology urolithiasis guidelines panel. Eur Urol 72(2):220–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.046
Ahmad AA, Alhunaidi O, Aziz M, Omar M, Al-Kandari AM, El-Nahas A, El-Shazly M (2017) Current trends in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an internet-based survey. Ther Adv Urol 9(9–10):219–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287217724726
Netto NR Jr, Ikonomidis J, Ikari O, Claro JA (2005) Comparative study of percutaneous access for staghorn calculi. Urology 65(4):659–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.10.081(discussion 662–653)
Wong C, Leveillee RJ (2002) Single upper-pole percutaneous access for treatment of > or = 5-cm complex branched staghorn calculi: is shockwave lithotripsy necessary? J Endourol 16(7):477–481. https://doi.org/10.1089/089277902760367430
Zeng GH, Liu Y, Zhong W, Fei X, Song Y (2015) The role of middle calyx puncture in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: relative factors and choice considerations. Miner Urol Nefrol 67(4):335–345
Falahatkar S, Kazemnezhad E, Moghaddam KG, Kazemzadeh M, Asadollahzade A, Farzan A, Damavand RS, Aval HB, Esmaeili S (2013) Middle calyx access in complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Can Urol Assoc J 7(5–6):E306–E310. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.11307
Song Y, Jin W, Hua S, Fei X (2016) Middle calyx access is better for single renal pelvic stone in ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urolithiasis 44(5):459–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0866-9
Li X, He Z, Wu K, Li SK, Zeng G, Yuan J, He Y, Lei M (2009) Chinese minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the Guangzhou experience. J Endourol 23(10):1693–1697. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.1537
Munver R, Delvecchio FC, Newman GE, Preminger GM (2001) Critical analysis of supracostal access for percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 166(4):1242–1246
Lojanapiwat B, Prasopsuk S (2006) Upper-pole access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: comparison of supracostal and infracostal approaches. J Endourol 20(7):491–494. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2006.20.491
Akman T, Binbay M, Sari E, Yuruk E, Tepeler A, Akcay M, Muslumanoglu AY, Tefekli A (2011) Factors affecting bleeding during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: single surgeon experience. J Endourol 25(2):327–333. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0302
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2010.09936.x(discussion 899–900)
Zeng G, Zhao Z, Wan S, Mai Z, Wu W, Zhong W, Yuan J (2013) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for simple and complex renal caliceal stones: a comparative analysis of more than 10,000 cases. J Endourol 27(10):1203–1208. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0061
Nicklas AP, Schilling D, Bader MJ, Herrmann TR, Nagele U (2015) The vacuum cleaner effect in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. World J Urol 33(11):1847–1853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1541-4
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Khadgi, S., EL-Nahas, A.R., Darrad, M. et al. Safety and efficacy of a single middle calyx access (MCA) in mini-PCNL. Urolithiasis 48, 541–546 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01176-4