KIDNEY STONES – WHEN TO USE MINI-PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY AND WHEN TO USE ULTRA-MINI PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY?: A NARRATIVE REVIEW

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy has become the standard procedure for large renal stones but still remains highly challenging due to complications such as bleeding and sepsis, even though it has high stone free rate (SFR). We report the early outcomes of more than 1000 percutaneous nephrolithotomys done in our center. A retrospective study of all patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy from January 2010 to December 2017 in single institution was conducted. All cases were stratified into three groups based on tract size; standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy with tract size ? 22 F, mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy with tract size 15 - 20 F and ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy with tract size ? 14 F. Age, gender, stone complexity using Guy's stone score, stone size, operative time, hemoglobin drop, hospital stay, early major and minor complications were reviewed. A total of 1074 patients had undergone percutaneous nephrolithotomy among which, 578 patients were standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, 433 mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and 63 had undergone ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy. There was even distribution of patients with Guy's stone score 1 and 2 in all three groups. However, majority of patients with Guy's stone score 3 underwent standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy or mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and no patients with Guy's stone score 4 underwent ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Age group, gender and operative time were comparable between the groups; however, significant difference was noted in terms of less hemoglobin drop and shorter hospital stay (p-value < 0.05) in the miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. Complications were found to be fewer in mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy group in comparison to standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Miniaturization of tract size significantly decreases post-operative complication rates, blood loss and hospital stay while maintaining high stone free rates in well selected patients undergoing Percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

93 - The modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy technique and comparison with standard nephrolithotomy: A randomized prospective study

ABSTRACTIntroduction and ObjectiveTotally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been demonstrated to be feasible and safe, particularly for mini-PCNL. Having an objective test to guide patient selection could improve confidence in this practice and facilitate broader adoption. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of an intraoperative methylene blue test to determine candidacy for totally tubeless PCNL.MethodsAdult patients undergoing PCNL at four institutions were included in this study. Patients with prior reconstructive surgery, chronic pain, or requiring ureteral dilation were excluded. After stone clearance, 10 mL methylene blue (MB) dye was injected into the percutaneous access tract. A positive test (“pass”) was defined as visualization of blue dye in the bladder catheter within two minutes of injection. In some standard PCNL cases, totally tubeless management was simulated by placement of a capped nephrostomy tube. Post-operative complications within 7 days were evaluated as the primary outcome.ResultsThe intraoperative MB test was performed in 91 PCNL cases: 60 mini-PCNLs (16 Fr access) and 31 standard PCNLs (24+ Fr access). Mini-PCNL cases were more likely to pass the MB test compared to standard PCNL cases (75% vs 38.7%, p = 0.001). Of the 45 mini-PCNL subjects who passed, 40 were left totally tubeless, resulting in two minor complications (urinary retention, obstructing ureteral stone fragment). In the standard PCNL cohort, 12 passed the MB test. Five were left totally tubeless and 3 simulated totally tubeless management with capped nephrostomy tubes; one subject had a transient postoperative creatinine elevation, and one required uncapping for steinstrasse. There were no other obstructive or infectious complications, and no surgical reintervention was required.ConclusionsAn intraoperative methylene blue test is a simple test with high positive-predictive value to determine candidacy for totally tubeless PCNL in real time for both mini and standard PCNLs.

Background and objectives: The management of nephrolithiasis has undergone substantial transformation with the introduction of minimally invasive endourological techniques. The objective of this research is to assess and compare the effectiveness of the two types of treatments of kidney stones mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Methods: A randomized comparison trial that included 150 patients diagnosed with renal stones from January 2022 to January 2024. Patients who were admitted to the urology department at Rizgary teaching hospital, Zheen international hospital and Zanko hospital were systematically assigned, through a random process, into 2 separate groups: A) mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy group, or B) standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Parameters such as operative time, post operative hemoglobin level, complications, duration of hospitalization and residual stone were compared. Results: The mean pre-operative hemoglobin was 13.5 ± 1.03 g/dl in patients who underwent standard Percutaneous, and 13.7 ± 0.65 g/dl in those who underwent mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (p&gt;0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between mini- percutaneous nephrolithotomy post-operative hemoglobin (12.9 ± 0.79 g/dl) and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy post operative hemoglobin (11.7 ± 2.5 g/dl) (p&lt;0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in operative time between Group A and Group B. However, the rate of residual stone was significantly higher in standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (p&lt;0.05). Conclusions: Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy demonstrates enhanced efficacy in handling renal calculi, delivering a higher rate of stone clearance compared to Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Introduction: For the management of renal stones, Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has undergone significant changes in the last few years in the quest for improving efficacy and reducing morbidity. Minimally-invasive modalities of PCNL, such as mini- PCNL, ultra-mini PCNL, and micro-PCNL, have evolved with advancements in optics and technology. However, with these newer advancements, the migration of small fragments produced with laser lithotripsy remains a concern, which may result in incomplete stone clearance. A new technique of PCNL is termed “Superperc” that utilizes suction to remove all the fragments and maintain a one-way flow. Methods: This study involved 35 consecutive patients who underwent PCNL with the Superperc technique from March 2020 to December 2020. Surgery was performed using a pediatric ureteroscope used as a nephroscope and a specially designed sheath with a suction attachment. The Superperc uses a 10/12 F tract size, a specially designed Superperc sheath (Shah Sheath) with a suction mechanism, and a pediatric ureteroscope 4.5/6. Results: The age range is 20-65 years, with 23 males and 12 females. Stone size was 1- 3 cm, and operative time was 30-90 min. Upper calyceal punctures 7cases , 19 had middle, 6 lower calyceal and 3 had two punctures. DJ stent was placed in 7 patients, whereas 28 patients had a ureteric catheter for 24 hours. Only three patients required a nephrostomy tube. No blood transfusion. Postoperatively one patient had a mild fever, and one had transient hematuria. Complete stone clearance as per nephroscopy &amp;fluoroscopy. The hospital stay was 24-72 h. Conclusion: Superperc is a new technique of minimally-invasive PCNL and can be successfully done with minimal modification in the armamentarium, with the potential advantage of good stone clearance. Bangladesh J. Urol. 2022; 25(2): 71-75

To evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of a totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) by comparing the clinical outcomes and cost analysis between standard PCNL and totally tubeless PCNL for renal stones. From June 2012 to September 2013, a total of 121 patients with renal stones who underwent totally tubeless or standard PCNL by two experienced surgeons were retrospectively evaluated by group. According to the surgeon's preference for the nephrostomy tube and/or ureteral stent, the present study was designed to be divided into Group 1 and Group 2. Group 1 was performed by one surgeon (H.J. Cho) who preferred a totally tubeless PCNL and Group 2 was performed by the other surgeon (S.H. Hong) who preferred a standard PCNL. We excluded bilateral renal stones, multiple approach, whole staghorn calculi, and previous renal surgery. Patient and stone characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative parameters, and cost analysis were compared between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the patient demographics between groups. Mean stone burden was 501.5±361.1 mm(2) in Group 1 v 535.2±353.1 mm(2) in Group 2 (P=0.651). Length of hospital stay (1.72±0.58 v 4.10±1.88 days, P<0.001), postoperative pain scores using a visual analog scale (day 0: P<0.001, day 1: P=0.002), and analgesia requirements (33.2±21.3 v 45.2±19.5 mg, P=0.005) for Group 1 v Group 2 showed significant differences. The stone-free rate was 86.4% v 89.8% in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively (P=0.609). There were no significant differences in overall complications between groups (P=0.213). Mean total medical treatment costs in Groups 1 and 2 were 2398.22±549.1 USD and 2845.70±824.2 USD, respectively (P=0.002). Many clinical outcomes in the totally tubeless PCNL showed comparable or better results than standard PCNL. We believe that totally tubeless PCNL is an acceptable, safe, and cost-effective alternative to standard PCNL for the treatment of renal stones.

To compare the standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in order to determine the optimal tract size for patients with renal stones. A systematic search of Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases was conducted for articles published through 20 August 2019, reporting on a comparison of the standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Of 763 studies, 14 were considered for the evidence synthesis. A total of 1980 cases were included. Of these patients, 897 cases underwent standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and 1083 cases underwent mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Stone-free rates were 87.6% (786 of 897 patients) for standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy and 87.8% (951 of 1083 patients) for mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (p = 0.57). Tract sizes of 30F and 22-26F in standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy group shorten operation time compared with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (p = 0.02; p = 0.004; respectively). Leakage (p = 0.04), bleeding (p = 0.01), blood transfusion (p < 0.00001), and renal pelvis perforation (p = 0.02) were more common in standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy group than in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. Subgroup analysis showed only blood transfusion for 30F and 22-26F standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy group was more common than mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (p < 0.0001, p = 0.005, respectively). Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy was associated with higher leakage, bleeding, blood transfusion, and renal pelvis perforation, but had a shorter operation time. Tract size of 30F improved the stone-free rate compared with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, but led to more complications. Tract size of 22-26F was no better than 30F or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

A Critical Review of Miniaturised Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Is Smaller Better?

Background: Renal stones, particularly those between 2 cm and 3.5 cm in size, present a significant challenge in urology. Despite the availability of modern techniques, the optimal treatment for stones within this size range remains a contentious issue. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) are two popular minimally invasive procedures used to treat renal stones. However, there is limited consensus on the superiority of one over the other in terms of clinical outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction. Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of PCNL and RIRS in the treatment of renal stones sized between 2 cm and 3.5 cm, specifically focusing on stone-free rate (SFR), complications, hospital stay, blood loss, the need for repeat procedures, and patient satisfaction. Method: This was a prospective, randomized study conducted from June 2024 TO December 2024 at CMH nephrology and urology department district peshawer, with 150 patients presenting with renal stones between 2 cm and 3.5 cm. The patients were randomly assigned to either the PCNL group (n = 75) or the RIRS group (n = 75). Preoperative imaging (CT or ultrasound) confirmed stone size. Patients with bilateral kidney stones, a history of previous kidney surgeries, or significant comorbidities were excluded. Clinical outcomes, including SFR, hospital stay, complications (postoperative fever, infection, stent-related symptoms), blood loss, and the need for repeat procedures, were analyzed. Patient satisfaction was also evaluated using a 1-10 scale. Result: The study found that PCNL had a significantly higher stone-free rate (95%) compared to RIRS (82%). The mean hospital stay for RIRS was shorter (1.56 ± 0.4 days) compared to PCNL (6.5 ± 1.2 days). While the incidence of postoperative postoperative infection was higher in the RIRS group (44% vs. 2.7%), blood loss was greater in the PCNL group (12% vs. 4%). The need for additional procedures was higher in the RIRS group, with 44% requiring further sessions, compared to just 2.7% in the PCNL group. Patient satisfaction was higher in the PCNL group (94.7%) compared to RIRS (77.3%). The treatment of renal stones larger than 2 cm and smaller than 3.5 cm remains controversial, and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) are two popular treatment options. This study compares these two techniques in terms of clinical outcomes, including stone-free rate (SFR), complications, hospital stay, and patient satisfaction. This prospective study was conducted June 2024 TO December 2024 at CMH neprology and urology department district peshawer involving 150 patients with renal stones who were randomized into two treatment arms, PCNL and RIRS, with 75 patients in each arm. They critically evaluated the following parameters: SFR, duration of hospital stay, blood loss during surgery, complications, requirement for re-procedures, and patient satisfaction. The puncture access of the PCNL group was decided according to the Guy's Score classification. The stone-free rate was significantly higher in the PCNL group (95%) compared to the group treated with other methods (82%). The mean hospitalization time was shorter for RIRS (6.5 ± 1.2 vs. 1.56 ± 0.4 days). PostoperativePostoperative infective complications were seen more in the RIRS group (44%) along with the stent -related symptoms (34.6%) but had the least postoperative morbidity in the PCNL group (2.7% infection). Blood loss was greater for the PCNL group (12%) compared to the RIRS group (4%), but both groups had low requirements for blood transfusions (2.7% for PCNL and 1.3% for RIRS). Furthermore, RIRS required a greater proportion of repeat sessions (44%) for total stone clearance, especially in cases involving larger stones or increased stone density, whereas PCNL required fewer repeat procedures (2.7%). The patient satisfaction was excellent in the PCNL group (94.7%) and was slightly higher than in the RIRS group (77.3%). Conclusion: Both PCNL and RIRS are effective treatments for renal stones between 2 and 3.5 cm, with PCNL offering superior stone-free rates and greater patient satisfaction, particularly for stones with favorable anatomy. RIRS is a less invasive approach but may require multiple sessions for complete stone clearance and is associated with a higher incidence of postoperative postoperative complications. The choice of procedure should be individualized based on patient characteristics, stone features, and treatment preferences.

Mini Percutaneous Kidney Stone Removal: Applicable Technologies

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is an endourological method applied as the standard or tubeless method for kidney stone treatment. In a retrospective cohort study, 88 surgery units involving 75 children up to 18years old with kidney stones who underwent the surgery for 8years in Shahid Beheshti and Boo-ali hospitals in Hamadan with one of the two methods of standard or tubeless PCNL were evaluated and compared considering the success rate of operation, hemoglobin, hematocrit drop, need for medications, need for blood transfusion, duration of surgery, and the length of hospital stay. Among the 88 units studied, 47 cases were operated with the standard PCNL and 41 cases by tubeless method. In children operated by standard and tubeless PCNL, the complete success rate of operation was 87.2% and 100% (P = 0.006), the need for blood transfusion was 2.1% and 0% (P = 1.00), the need for opioids was 27.7% and 14.6% (P = 0.134), the decrease in hemoglobin was -1.82 ± 0.94 and -1.30 ± 0.98mg/dl (P = 0.024), the decrease in hematocrit was -5.40 ± 2.66 and -3.52 ± 3.11mg/dL (P = 0.003), the mean surgery duration was 109.30 ± 53.27 and 101.46 ± 31.92min (P = 0.414), the duration of postoperative hospitalization was 3.38 ± 1.76 and 2.46 ± 1.27days (P = 0.007), and the frequency of fever was 23.4% and 7.3% (P = 0.04), respectively. The success rate of kidney stone surgery in children with the tubeless PCNL is higher than the standard method, and its complications are lower.

This study was done to review and compare safety, effectiveness and advantages of total tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), tubeless PCNL with standard PCNL. This prospective comparative study involving 30 patients in each total tubeless PCNL, tubeless PCNL and standard PCNL group from Feb 2021 to June 2022. Significant difference was found in mean duration of surgery (p < 0.01), mean hospital stay (p < 0.01), mean VAS post op score (p < 0.01), mean time to return to normal activity (p < 0.01) in total and tubeless PCNL group as compared with standard PCNL. While no significant difference found in mean haemoglobin drop (p = 0.1417), blood transfusion (p = 3721), incidence of urine leak (p = 0.13), need of accessory secondary procedure (p = 0.1322) and associated complications (p = 0.5939) among three groups. Study observed that total tubeless, tubeless PCNL is a safe and efficient technique. It is significantly associated with the advantages of shorter hospital stay, shorter time to return to normal activity, lower postoperative pain scores. Total tubeless PCNL obviates need of second procedure of removing DJ stent. Standard, tubeless and total tubeless PCNL have similar post op complication rate. Study thus concludes that total tubeless, tubeless PCNL can be used as a substitute for traditional standard PCNL.

BackgroundTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in treatment of kidney stones 20–30 mm.MethodsA prospective randomized study of 70 patients who presented to the urology department with calyceal or renal pelvic stone of 20–30 mm between September 2017 and September 2019. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, Group A (Mini PCNL) consists of 35 patients who were treated with mini PCNL and Group B (RIRS) consists of 35 patients who were Achieving success of the technique was considered when the patient is stone-free or has radiologically insignificant residual fragments < 4 mm.ResultsThe demographic data in this study were comparable in both groups. The stone size was 20.43 ± 2.2 mm in group A & 20.5 ± 2.1 in group B, with no statistical significance. Meanwhile, the operative time in group A was 59.71 ± 19.44 min and in group B was 80.43 ± 14.79 min with statistical significance difference (p value < 0.001), while Fluoroscopy time had a mean of 8.11 ± 2.05 min in group A & 5.8 ± 1.98 min in group B with statistically significant diffrence (p value < 0.001). The stone free rate (SFR) was 88.6% in mini PCNL and 82.9% in RIRS with no statistically significant difference (p value: 0.5).ConclusionRIRS and mini PCNL can be an effective and alternative option for treatment of renal stones 2–3 cm. Both techniques have relatively similar SFR but RIRS showed more operative time, on contrary Mini-PCNL has more operative and postoperative complications. A multicenter studies with larger numbers of patients will be more effective to confirm these results.

Mini versus ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in a paediatric population

ObjectiveTo recommend our clinical experiences in five important concerns which common to be met in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), helping the beginners easy to handle this kind of procedures.MethodsReview PCNL in ten years in our hospital, we analyzed five important aspects which could influence the results of operations. Include selection of access site, loss of percutaneous access while dilation, different methods of stone fragmentation, controlling pressure of irrigation in PCNL, and management of complications.Results(I) Selection of access site. Because there are less blood vessels in most posterior lower or upper middle calyces, renal puncture through these two calyces would bleed less. It does not need to set up the third access, because of accessorial application of ESWL and RIRS. If necessary, puncture residual stone in calyx may be needed. (II) Loss of percutaneous access while dilation. If the guidewire was out of upper urinary tract collecting system, most of time it needs repeating puncture. If the sheath was not deep enough, the guidewire was still in collecting system, push the nephroscope into calyx along the guidewire, then advancing the sheath. (III) Different methods of stone fragmentation. The usual methods of stone fragmentation are pneumatic lithotripsy, ultrasonic lithotripsy and holmium laser lithotripsy. Pneumatic lithotripsy is efficacy and inexpensive. Almost all kinds of stones could be broken, except a few stones such as calcium oxalate monohydrate. It is too rigid that to be broken is very difficult. The speed of lithotripsy is slow, and the debris of stone should be clear off one by one. The ultrasonic lithotripsy could sucked away the debris of stone at same time of lithotripsy. The speed of lithotripsy is high. But bigger access has to be used, and it is difficult to break the stiffer stones. All kinds of stones could be broken by holmium laser, especially high power holmium laser, the debris of stone is less and speed of lithotripsy is higher than pneumatic lithotripter. But there is no stone removal function. (IV) Controlling pressure of irrigation in PCNL. It is very important to keep the sheath unobstructed, there is a relatively high pressure in mini PCNL with pneumatic or laser lithotripsy, a relatively lower pressure in collecting system in standard PCNL with ultrasonic lithotripsy. The irrigation pressure and flow rate could be changed according to the view and whether need to flush out the stone debris or not. (V) Management of severe complications. Review the experiences of damage of pleura, super selective renal arterial embolization for hemorrhage after PCNL, the use of antibiotics and management of respiratory and circulatory function for treatment of high fever and urosepsis, the management of injury of colon and stone combine with renal pelvic tumor.ConclusionsThe details would determine the results of PCNL. Any mistakes would result in failure of the procedure and damage of kidney, sometimes will be lethal for the patient. Pay attention to the details is the key of successful finishing the operations.