Stone free rates (SFRs) after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL); are we comparing apples with watermelons?

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy or flexible ureteral lithotripsy, which one is better for patients with upper ureteral calculi of 1.5-2.0 cm in diameter

PURPOSE

First research to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteral lithotripsy (FURSL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the treatment of the upper ureteral stone is between 1.5 cm and 2.0 cm in diameter since there is no consensus with such ureteral stone yet.

METHODS

From December 2018 to October 2022, 104 patients with calculi in the upper ureter received percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)or flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURSL) in our institution. The clinical data of the patients in the two groups were retrospectively searched. Stone removal rate, operation time, blood loss, postoperative pain score, postoperative inflammatory factor, postoperative complication rates and ureteral obstruction three months after the operation were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients were included in the study. The stone clearance rate and the secondary surgery rate were 88.89% and 7.41% in the FURSL group, the figures were 97.96% and 2.0% in the PCNL group (p = 0.067, 0.497). Regarding ureteral obstruction three months after the operation, there were 2 patients in FURSL group and 0 patients in PCNL group(p = 0.497).Compared to patients in FURSL group, patients in the PCNL group had shorter operation time(PCNL 71.81 ± 18.94 min vs. FURSL 86.80 ± 22.49 min, p = 0.0004), fewer complications(PCNL 20.37% vs. FURSL 6.12%), and lower postoperative inflammatory factor(p = 0.0004), yet they got more hemoglobin drop (PCNL 13.14 ± 9.81 g/L vs. FURSL 4.77 ± 3.55 g/L, p < 0.0001), higher postoperative pain scores(p = 0.0017) in the first three postoperative days and longer hospital stay (PCNL 4.96 ± 1.21 days vs. FURSL 3.60 ± 0.83 days).

CONCLUSION

Both FURSL and PCNL were effective methods for treating upper ureteral stones of 1.5-2.0 cm in diameter given the extremely high stone clearance rate and a very low secondary surgery rate, as long as rare ureteral obstruction in medium-long term observation. Additionally, FURSL can effectively reduce surgical bleeding, postoperative pain, and hospital stay, while PCNL can decrease operation time, the risk of infection, and complications. Therefore, doctors could select suitable surgical treatment for those patients depending on their different clinical situations based on these findings.

Can mini PCNL achieve the same results as RIRS? The initial single center experience

BACKGROUND

Urolithiasis is a prevalent disease worldwide with high recurrence rate, minimally invasive interventions have largely replaced open ones, namely PCNL and RIRS. Miniaturization, optical improvements, and modern laser types made these procedures safe and effective in the management of single renal stones.Aim of the study: Is to compare the effectiveness of mini PCNL with RIRS in the treatment of single renal stone of ≤25 mm.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective study that included 60 patients with single renal stones of ≤25 mm and were treated by either mini PCNL (group A) or RIRS (group B). The study was performed during the period from October 2020 to April 2021.

RESULTS

The mean operative time RIRS group was 43.6 ± 10.493, while for miniPCNL it was 36.6 ± 7.035 (P = 0.004). The stone free rate in RIRS and miniPCNL group was 70% and 90% respectively (P = 0.053). The need for JJ stent was higher in RIRS compared to miniPCNL group (70% vs. 40%) respectively (P = 0.02). The duration of hospital stay in miniPCNL was 38.2 h compared to 16.7 h for RIRS group (p = 0.0001). The rate of postoperative hemoglobin drop was higher in MiniPCNL compared to RIRS (P = 0.0001). There was no significant difference regarding complication rates between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Mini-PCNL FOR the treatment of renal stones sized ≤25 mm has high stone free rate, shorter operative time, less requirement for JJ stent and near similar post-operative pain and complications compared to RIRS.

Definition and Unfavorable Risk Factors of Trifecta in Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Objectives: In performing mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), we aimed at achieving the trifecta of stone-free status and no complications in a single treatment session. We analyzed our experience to determine negative predictors for achieving these three-fold goals. Patients and Methods: The data of all consecutive patients who underwent tubeless mini-PCNL between July 2015 and March 2020 in two hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. Stone-free was defined as no residual stones. Complications were recorded and graded according to modified Clavien classification. Patients were divided into two groups according to the outcome (trifecta and non-trifecta). Factors affecting the outcome were compared between both groups by using univariate and multivariate analyses to detect independent unfavorable risk factors. Results: The study included 944 patients with mean age 40.2 years (standard deviation: 13.6). The stone-free rate after one session of mini-PCNL was 90.7%. Auxiliary procedures were needed in 14 patients (1.5%). Complications were observed in 76 patients (8.1%). Trifecta was achieved in 792 patients (84%). Independent unfavorable risk factors in multivariate analysis were number of caliceal groups affected by the stones (relative risks were 1.95 to 2.27 and 5.7 for one, two, and three caliceal groups respectively) and number of percutaneous tracts (relative risk was 2.2). Stone size and complexity were not significant predictors of missing trifecta in multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Mini-PCNL can achieve a high rate of trifecta (84%) for different stone sizes and complexities. Stones distribution in multiple caliceal groups and multiple tracts are the independent unfavorable risk factor.