Mini versus ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in a paediatric population

Mini-versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric population: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Mini PCNL has gained popularity in adult patients due to reduction in the complication rate with comparable stone free rate. There is paucity of level 1 evidence regarding the benefit of mini PCNL in the pediatric group.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a randomised study to compare mini PCNL (mPCNL) with standard PCNL (sPCNL) for the management of renal calculi in patients less than 18 years of age in terms of safety, efficacy, and stone-free rate (SFR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomised controlled trial was performed on 50 children who underwent PCNL from June 2015 to March 2021, who were divided into two groups. Group I had 25 patients managed with mPCNL (sheath size 16.5 Fr) and Group II had 25 patients who underwent sPCNL (sheath size 26 Fr). Primary outcomes including stone free rates (SFR) and hemoglobin drop and secondary outcomes like operative time, complications, pain score, need of analgesia, incidence of nephrostomy site leak, hospital stay in days were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients in groups I and II was 9.4 ± 2.6 and 10.4 ± 2.26 years, respectively (p = 0.15). The mean stone sizes in both groups I and II were 18.6 ± 2.56 and 20.2 ± 3.58 mm, respectively (p > 0.05). The stone free rate for group I was 88% and for group II, 92% (p = 0.64). The average drop in hemoglobin was higher in group II compared to group I (1.1 ± 0.31 g/dl and 1.7 ± 0.23 g/dl respectively; p < 0.0001), however the mean blood transfusion rate was not significantly different in both groups. The operating time was shorter in group II compared to group I (p-value - 0.0030). The pain scores were lesser for the group I. Grade I complications were higher in group II as compared to group I (p-0.047); however, grade II complications were comparable in both groups. The mean hospital stay was not significantly different in both groups.

DISCUSSION

This study confirms the role of mini PCNL in pediatric patients with renal stones. The stone clearance rate of mini PCNL is equivalent to standard PCNL, with lesser blood loss and postoperative complications, however with longer operative time during mPCNL. The small number of the participants in both arms is a limitation of this study and may also reflect fewer children with urolithiasis being treated surgically even in a tertiary care referral centre.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-PCNL offers equivalent stone free outcome with lower complications rate compared to the standard PCNL for all types of renal stones.

A comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy performed in the supine and prone positions for the treatment of pediatric kidney stones: a single-center experience

Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL), which has a smaller tract size (14-20 Fr) than conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy, has been shown to be safe and effective in pediatric patients with large and complex upper urinary tract stones. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of MPCNL between the supine and prone positions in a pediatric population. The data of pediatric patients who underwent MPCNL at our center between January 2010 and March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the surgical position, the patients were divided into the prone (Group P) and supine (Group S) groups. In both groups, dilatation was performed using 14-18 Fr metallic dilators. The two groups were compared in terms of perioperative data, postoperative stone-free rates (SFRs), and complications. There were 36 (59%) patients in Group P and 25 (41%) patients in Group S. Stones were mostly located in the pelvis (49.2%) and second most frequently in the lower pole (27.9%). Fluoroscopy time was shorter in Group S but did not statistically significantly differ compared to Group P (p = 0.181). However, operation time was statistically significantly shorter in Group S (73.8 ± 35 vs. 99.8 ± 37.4 min, p = 0.008). Although there was no significant difference, relatively higher SFR were detected in Group S (88% vs. 83%, p = 0.725). Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) was performed on six (24%) patients in Group S, and the SFR was 100% among these patients. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the presence of complications (16.7% vs. 16%, p = 0.945). Both supine and prone MPCNL appear to be safe and effective in the pediatric age group, with similar stone-free and complication rates. In the supine procedure, the operation time is shortened compared to the prone. In addition, simultaneous retrograde access has the potential to increase the overall success rate of surgery.

Shockwaves and the Rolling Stones: An Overview of Pediatric Stone Disease

Urinary stone disease is a common problem in adults, with an estimated 10% to 20% lifetime risk of developing a stone and an annual incidence of almost 1%. In contrast, in children, even though the incidence appears to be increasing, urinary tract stones are a rare problem, with an estimated incidence of approximately 5 to 36 per 100,000 children. Consequently, typical complications of rare diseases, such as delayed diagnosis, lack of awareness, and specialist knowledge, as well as difficulties accessing specific treatments also affect children with stone disease. Indeed, because stone disease is such a common problem in adults, frequently, it is adult practitioners who will first be asked to manage affected children. Yet, there are unique aspects to pediatric urolithiasis such that treatment practices common in adults cannot necessarily be transferred to children. Here, we review the epidemiology, etiology, presentation, investigation, and management of pediatric stone disease; we highlight those aspects that separate its management from that in adults and make a case for a specialized, multidisciplinary approach to pediatric stone disease.

Pediatric Urolithiasis: Current Surgical Strategies and Future Perspectives

New technological innovations and cutting-edge techniques have led to important changes in the surgical management of pediatric urolithiasis. Miniaturized technologies and minimally invasive approaches have been increasingly used in children with urinary stones to minimize surgical complications and improve patient outcomes. Moreover, the new computer technologies of the digital era have been opening new horizons for the preoperative planning and surgical treatment of children with urinary calculi. Three-dimensional modeling reconstructions, virtual, augmented, and mixed reality are rapidly approaching the surgical practice, equipping surgeons with powerful instruments to enhance the real-time intraoperative visualization of normal and pathological structures. The broad range of possibilities offered by these technological innovations in the adult population finds increasing applications in pediatrics, offering a more detailed visualization of small anatomical structures. This review illustrates the most promising techniques and devices to enhance the surgical treatment of pediatric urolithiasis in children, aiming to favor an early adoption and to stimulate more research on this topic.

Minimally invasive surgery for pediatric renal and ureteric stones: A therapeutic update

The incidence of pediatric urolithiasis (PU) is growing worldwide. The corresponding therapeutic methods have become a research hot spot in pediatric urology. PU has the characteristics of abnormal metabolism, easy recurrence, and immature urinary system development, which make its treatment different from that of adults. Pediatric urologists should select the optimal treatment modality to completely remove the stones to prevent recurrence. Currently, the curative treatments of PU include extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), laparoscopic, robot-assisted laparoscopic, and open surgery. This review aims to conduct a therapeutic update on the surgical interventions of both pediatric renal and ureteric stones. It accentuates that pediatric surgeons or urologists should bear in mind the pros and cons of various minimally invasive surgical treatments under different conditions. In the future, the treatment of PU will be more refined due to the advancement of technology and the development of surgical instruments. However, a comprehensive understanding of the affected factors should be taken into account by pediatric urologists to select the most beneficial treatment plan for individual children to achieve precise treatment.