Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcome-Based Comparison of Percutaneous Procedures for Urinary Lithiasis with Calibre of Instrumentation less than 12Fr

  • Minimally Invasive Surgery (V Bird and M Desai, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Renal stone disease is becoming increasingly prevalent globally. With a rise in stone disease worldwide, there is also a relative increase in the rates of surgical intervention. Technological advances have allowed a move towards minimising the complications rates and length of stay with a reduction in invasiveness and size of instruments. A trend for minimising the percutaneous tract size has been noted in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for renal stones. The management has shifted from open surgery to standard PCNL, mini-PCNL and the latest ultra-mini and micro-PCNL techniques. There is a need to compare outcomes for the ever-advancing technologies, such as the smaller calibre of instruments, to assess risk-benefit in practice. This review looks at outcome-based comparison of percutaneous procedures for urinary lithiasis with instruments <12Fr in size.

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

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance,•• Of major importance

  1. Fernström I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy: a new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976;10(3):257–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jackman SV et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants and preschool age children: experience with a new technique. Urology. 1998;52:697–701.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mishra et al. Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2cm size renal stone. BJUI. 2011;108(6):898–9.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Tepeler et al. The role of microperc in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal calculi. J Endourol. 2013;27(1):13–8. This is a retrospective study for patients undergoing mPCNL who previously failed RIRS or ESWL. They report good outcomes in patients with lower pole stones, proposed as an ideal use for mPCNL.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Piskin et al. Preliminary, favourable experience with mircoperc in kidney and bladder stones. J Endourol. 2012;26(11):1443–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sabnis et al. Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of small renal calculi: a randomized controlled trial. BJUI. 2013;112:355–61. This is a recent, good quality randomised control trial. They have shown that mPCNL can provide comparable stone clearance against RIRS with comparable hospital stay.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Armagan et al. Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of moderate-size renal calculi. J Endourol. 2013;27(2):177–81. This paper has shown that stones of significant size, that previously would have been recommended for standard PCNL, can be successfully treated by mPCNL with impressive stone free rates.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos D. Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence and associated risk factors. Rev Urol. 2010;12(2/3):e86–96.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Turk et al. Guidelines on urolithiasis. European Association of Urology. 2014

  10. Opondo et al. Standardization of patient outcomes reporting in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2014;28(7):767–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Karakose A, Aydogdu O, Atesci YZ. Does the use of smaller Amplatz sheath size reduce complication rates in percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urol J. 2014;11(4):1752–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ali S, Kumar N, Baloch U. Outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Coll Phys Surg Pak. 2014;24(4):261–4.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sivalingam S, Cannon ST, Nakada SY. Current practices in percutanous nephrolithotomy among endourologists. J Endourol. 2014;28(5):524–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Srisubat et al. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cohcrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; 7(4)

  15. Zheng et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal stones >2cm: A Meta-Analysis. Urol Int. 2014.

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK

    H. Wells & B. K. Somani

  2. Royal Wolverhampton Hospital NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK

    N. Rukin & A. Wright

Authors
  1. H. Wells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Rukin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. K. Somani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. K. Somani.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Minimally Invasive Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wells, H., Rukin, N., Wright, A. et al. Outcome-Based Comparison of Percutaneous Procedures for Urinary Lithiasis with Calibre of Instrumentation less than 12Fr. Curr Urol Rep 16, 53 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0528-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0528-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation