Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Urolithiasis 3/2019

01.06.2018 | Original Paper

Comparison of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of large kidney stones: a randomized prospective study

verfasst von: Ali Güler, Akif Erbin, Burak Ucpinar, Metin Savun, Omer Sarilar, Mehmet Fatih Akbulut

Erschienen in: Urolithiasis | Ausgabe 3/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

We aimed to compare the outcomes of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) and standard PNL techniques in the treatment of renal stones ≥ 2 cm. The study was designed as a randomized prospective study between January 2016 and April 2017. The patients with a kidney stone ≥ 2 cm were included in the study. Patients who had uncorrectable bleeding diathesis, abnormal renal anatomy, skeletal tract abnormalities, pregnant patients and pediatric patients (< 18 years old) were excluded from the study. The remaining patients were randomly divided into two groups as standard PNL and mPNL. For both group, demographic data, stone characteristics, operative data and postoperative data were recorded prospectively. The study included 160 consecutive patients who had kidney stone ≥ 2 cm. Of these, patients who met the exclusion criteria and patients who had missing data were excluded from the study. Remaining 97 patients were randomly divided into two groups as mPNL (n: 46) and standard PNL (n: 51). The mean age was 46.9 ± 13.7 and 47.4 ± 13.9 years for mPNL group and sPNL group, respectively. According to Clavien–Dindo classification, no statistical difference was detected between the groups in terms of complication rates (p 0.31). However, the rates of hemoglobin drop and transfusion rates were significantly in favour of mPNL (p 0.012 and p 0.018, respectively). Nephrostomy time and hospitalization time was found to be significantly shorter in mPNL group (p 0.017 and p 0.01, respectively). The success rate in the mPCNL group was higher than standard PNL group, however, this difference was statistically insignificant (76.5 vs 71.7%, p 0.59). Both mPNL and standard PNL are safe and effective treatment techniques for the treatment of kidney stones of ≥ 2 cm. Although there was no significant difference in success rates of both techniques; nephrostomy time, hospitalization time, bleeding and transfusion rates were in favour of mPNL.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Fernström I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10:257–259CrossRefPubMed Fernström I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10:257–259CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Türk C, Petrík A, Sarica K, Seitz K, Skolarikos C, Straub A M (2016) EAU guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69:468–474CrossRefPubMed Türk C, Petrík A, Sarica K, Seitz K, Skolarikos C, Straub A M (2016) EAU guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69:468–474CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Yamaguchi A, Skolarikos A, Buchholz NP, Chomón GB, Grasso M, Sapa M (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 25:933–939 4CrossRefPubMed Yamaguchi A, Skolarikos A, Buchholz NP, Chomón GB, Grasso M, Sapa M (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 25:933–939 4CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S, Bapat S, Desai M (2004) Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study. J Endourol 18:715–722CrossRefPubMed Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S, Bapat S, Desai M (2004) Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study. J Endourol 18:715–722CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Jackman SV, Docimo SG, Cadeddu JA, Bishoff JT, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW (1998) The “mini-perc” technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 16:371–374CrossRefPubMed Jackman SV, Docimo SG, Cadeddu JA, Bishoff JT, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW (1998) The “mini-perc” technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 16:371–374CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Desai MR, Sharma R, Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Stief C, Bader M (2011) Single-step percutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc): the initial clinical report. J Urol 186:140–145CrossRefPubMed Desai MR, Sharma R, Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Stief C, Bader M (2011) Single-step percutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc): the initial clinical report. J Urol 186:140–145CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Desai J, Solanki R (2013) Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): one more armamentarium. BJU Int 112:1046–1049PubMed Desai J, Solanki R (2013) Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): one more armamentarium. BJU Int 112:1046–1049PubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Zeng G, Wan S, Zhao Z, Zhu J, Tuerxun A, Song C (2016) Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP): a new concept in technique and instrumentation. BJU Int 117:655–661CrossRefPubMed Zeng G, Wan S, Zhao Z, Zhu J, Tuerxun A, Song C (2016) Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP): a new concept in technique and instrumentation. BJU Int 117:655–661CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Tefekli A, Karadag MA, Tepeler K, Sari E, Berberoglu Y, Baykal M (2008) Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified Clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 53:184–190CrossRefPubMed Tefekli A, Karadag MA, Tepeler K, Sari E, Berberoglu Y, Baykal M (2008) Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified Clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 53:184–190CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Cheng F, Yu W, Zhang X, Yang S, Xia Y, Ruan Y (2010) Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones. J Endourol 24:1579–1582CrossRefPubMed Cheng F, Yu W, Zhang X, Yang S, Xia Y, Ruan Y (2010) Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones. J Endourol 24:1579–1582CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 24:1075–1079CrossRefPubMed 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 24:1075–1079CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Wu C, Hua LX, Zhang JZ, Zhou XR, Zhong W, Ni HD (2017) Comparison of renal pelvic pressure and postoperative fever incidence between standard- and mini tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 33:36–43CrossRefPubMed Wu C, Hua LX, Zhang JZ, Zhou XR, Zhong W, Ni HD (2017) Comparison of renal pelvic pressure and postoperative fever incidence between standard- and mini tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 33:36–43CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhu W, Liu Y, Liu L, Lei M, Yuan J, Wan SP (2015) Minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta analysis. Urolithiasis 43:563–570CrossRefPubMed Zhu W, Liu Y, Liu L, Lei M, Yuan J, Wan SP (2015) Minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta analysis. Urolithiasis 43:563–570CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Abdelhafez MF, Wendt-Nordahl G, Kruck S, Mager R, Stenzl A, Knoll T (2016) Minimally invasive versus conventional large-bore percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of large sized renal calculi: Surgeon’s preference? Scand J Urol 50:212–215CrossRefPubMed Abdelhafez MF, Wendt-Nordahl G, Kruck S, Mager R, Stenzl A, Knoll T (2016) Minimally invasive versus conventional large-bore percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of large sized renal calculi: Surgeon’s preference? Scand J Urol 50:212–215CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Desai MR, Kukreja RA, Desai MM, Mhaskar SS, Wani KA, Patel SH (2004) A prospective randomized comparison of type of nephrostomy drainage following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: large bore versus small bore versus tubeless. J Urol 172:565–567CrossRefPubMed Desai MR, Kukreja RA, Desai MM, Mhaskar SS, Wani KA, Patel SH (2004) A prospective randomized comparison of type of nephrostomy drainage following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: large bore versus small bore versus tubeless. J Urol 172:565–567CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Giusti G, Piccinelli A, Taverna G, Benetti A, Pasini L, Corinti M (2007) Miniperc? No, thank you! Eur Urol 51:810–814CrossRefPubMed Giusti G, Piccinelli A, Taverna G, Benetti A, Pasini L, Corinti M (2007) Miniperc? No, thank you! Eur Urol 51:810–814CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Comparison of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of large kidney stones: a randomized prospective study
verfasst von
Ali Güler
Akif Erbin
Burak Ucpinar
Metin Savun
Omer Sarilar
Mehmet Fatih Akbulut
Publikationsdatum
01.06.2018
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Urolithiasis / Ausgabe 3/2019
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Elektronische ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1061-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2019

Urolithiasis 3/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Prostatakarzinom: EU initiiert neues Screeningkonzept

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Blasenkarzinom – Biomarker statt Zytologie?

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.