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

Comparative Outcomes of Day-Case Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy vs Conventional Inpatient Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PCNL performed as a day-case surgery in comparison to inpatient PCNL.

METHODS

Databases were searched up to January 27, 2024, for randomized and non-randomized studies comparing outcomes between day case PCNL and inpatient PCNL. Pooled data were analyzed using a Random-Effects (RE) model when Higgins I2% heterogeneity values were >50%; otherwise, a Fixed-Effects model was employed. The results were reported as odds ratios (OR), mean difference (MD) or standardized MD (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

One randomized controlled trial (RCT) and fourteen observational studies totaling 1574 patients were included. Pooled results revealed that patients in the day-case PCNL group experienced reduced blood loss (SMD -0.71 95% CI: [-1.31, -0.12] p 0.02) and transfusion rates (OR 0.10 95% CI: [0.03, 0.39], p 0.0008), lower overall and minor complications (OR 0.56, 95% CI: [0.42, 0.76], p 0.0002, and OR 0.52, 95% CI: [0.37, 0-73], p 0.0002, respectively), shorter operative time (MD -11.46, 95% CI: [-17.41, -5-50], p < 0.00001), and reduced total costs (MD -1597.18, 95% CI [-2436.42, -757.93], p 0.0002). Major complications, stone-free rate (SFR), emergency department (ED) visits, and readmission rates were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Day-case PCNL is a feasible and safe alternative to inpatient PCNL surgery in carefully selected patients, without increasing the risk of complications or readmission rates, and is likely to reduce total costs.

Miniaturizing the approach to upper tract renal calculi: Is smaller always better? A narrative review

Newer modalities for treating upper tract urinary stones focus on maintaining and improving outcomes, reducing complications, and optimizing patient care. This narrative review aims to outline novel miniaturized endourological innovations for managing upper tract calculi.

Efficacy and safety of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones (> 1 cm): a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The advantages and disadvantages of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) for treatment of upper urinary tract calculi have not been conclusively determined.

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, We comprehensively evaluated the performance of the two surgical approaches in treatment of upper urinary calculi. We searched the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of science databases for randomized controlled trial (RCT) articles on RIRS and mPCNL upto December 2022. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and subjected to the meta-analysis using the Stata 15.1 software (StataSE, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 18 eligible RCTs involving 1733 patients were included in this study. The meta-analysis revealed that mPCNL of 1-2 cm or 2-3 cm stones had a higher stone clearance rate (RR:1.08, 95%CI (1.03, 1.14), p = 0.002) and shorter operation time (WMD : -10.85 min, 95%CI (-16.76, -4.94), p<0.001). However, it was associated with more hospital stay time (WMD :1.01 day, 95%CI(0.53, 1.5), p<0.001), hemoglobin drops (WMD :0.27 g/dl, 95%CI (0.14, 0.41), p<0.001), blood transfusion rate (RR:5.04, 95%CI(1.62, 15.65), p = 0.005), pain visual analogue score (WMD:0.75, 95%CI (0.04, 1.46), p = 0.037), hospital costs (SMD :-0.97, 95%CI (-1.19, -0.76), p<0.001) and major complications (RR:1.89, 95%CI(1.01, 3.53), p = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

Therefore, in terms of surgical effects and operation time, mPCNL is superior to RIRS, but is inferior with regards to other perioperative parameters. These factors should be fully considered in clinical decision making.

Development and Validation of the Prediction Model of Sepsis in Patients After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Sepsis Progresses to Septic Shock

Background: To study the predictors of sepsis and the progression of sepsis to septic shock in patients after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and to establish and validate predictive models. Methods: The patients were assigned to either the development cohort or the validation cohort depending on their hospital. In the development cohort, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to screen independent risk factors for sepsis after PCNL and sepsis progression to septic shock. Nomogram prediction models were established according to the related independent risk factors. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to estimate the discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness of the prediction models, respectively. The two sets of models were further validated on the validation cohort. Results: In the development cohort, the risk factors for sepsis after PCNL were diabetes, urine nitrite, staghorn calculi, HU value, albumin-globulin ratio, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein/albumin ratio. The pre- and postoperative white blood cell counts were risk factors for the progression of sepsis to septic shock. The area under the ROC curve value for predicting sepsis risk was 0.891 and that for predicting septic shock risk was 0.981 in the development cohort; in the validation cohort, these values were 0.893 and 0.996, respectively. In the development cohort, the calibration test p values in the sepsis and septic shock cohorts were 0.946 and 0.634, respectively; in the validation cohort, these values were 0.739 and 0.208, respectively. DCA of the model in the sepsis and septic shock cohorts showed threshold probabilities of 10%-90% in the development cohort; in the validation cohort, these values were 10%-90%. Conclusion: The individualized nomogram prediction models can help improve the early identification of patients who are at higher risk of developing sepsis after PCNL and the progression of sepsis to septic shock to avoid further damage.

Pattern of key opinion leaders talks at major international urological meetings reflects the main differences in flexible ureteroscopy and PCNL diffusion

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the pattern of speaker activity related to both flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) during plenary sessions at the main (endo)urological international meetings over the last 10 years.

METHODS

We reviewed the meeting programs of the main endourological international meetings (EAU, AUA, WCE, and SIU) during 2011-2019. We detected all invited speakers at plenary sessions regarding fURS or PCNL. The proportion of fURS and PCNL talks was evaluated yearly during the study period. In order to analyze plenary session speaker composition, we estimated and compared the mean number of talks per speaker according to surgical technique. We also analyzed possible differences in age distribution according to the topic of the talk as well as the presence of young (i.e., < 45 years) speakers. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

During the last 10 years, a total of 498 plenary talks were found. Of those, 260 (52.2%), 211 (42.4%), and 27 (5.4%) discussed PCNL, fURS, or both, respectively. PCNL was more frequently discussed at the beginning and the end of the study period. Mean [SD] number of talks per speaker was higher for PCNL (2.9 [3.4] vs 1.6 [1.4], p < 0.001), meaning that a wider variety of speakers was invited to give fURS talks. Speakers discussing fURS were younger (median [interquartile range, IQR] age 48 [44-56] vs 52 [47-60] years, p < 0.001), and a higher proportion of young speakers was observed in the fURS group (26% vs 15% p < 0.001). PCNL speakers were more commonly discussing fURS than fURS speakers discussing PCNL (23% vs 17%, p = 0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a wider variety of speakers at fURS plenary sessions as compared to PCNL ones. It is easier and quicker to become an internationally recognized expert in the field of fURS rather than PCNL. PCNL speakers were able to master fURS more frequently than the other way around.

Urologists are optimistic surgeons: prevalence and predictors of discordance between intraoperative stone-free rate and cross-sectional imaging evaluation after vacuum-assisted mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy

PURPOSE

To assess how accurate are urologists in predicting stone-free status (SFS) after vacuum-assisted mini-PCNL (vamPCNL) compared to computed tomography (CT) and clinical predictors of discordant SFS.

METHODS

Data from 235 patients who underwent vamPCNL were analysed. Patient's demographics, stones' characteristics and operative data were recorded. SFS was evaluated intraoperatively by the treating urologist (iSFS) and with non-contrast CT 3 months after vamPCNL (ctSFS). SFS was defined as no residual stones. Stone complexity was scored with the Guy's score. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to identify clinical factors associated with discordant SFS (namely iSFS not confirmed at CT).

RESULTS

iSFS and ctSFS were 88.5% and 65.5%, respectively, with 54 (23%) cases resulting in discordant evaluation of SFS between the surgeon and CT imaging. Patients with discordant SFS had larger stone volume (p < 0.001), higher rate of multiple stones (p = 0.03) and higher rate of multiple calyceal groups affected by stones (p < 0.001) than those with concordant SFS. The use of flexible ureteroscopes to look for residual stones after lithotripsy was more frequently reported in cases with concordant SFS (p = 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that stones in > 2 calyceal groups (OR 10.2, p < 0.001), Guy's score II (OR 5.8, p < 0.01) and not using flexible ureteroscopes after lithotripsy (OR 2.9, p = 0.02) were independent predictors of discordant SFS.

CONCLUSION

One out of five patients is erroneously considered SF after vamPCNL. Urologist should carefully evaluate patients with multiple calyceal stones and consider using flexible ureteroscopes to complete lapaxy of migrated fragments in order to improve their prediction of SFS.

Is percutaneous nephrolithotomy effective and safe for children with solitary kidney?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in pediatric patients with solitary kidneys and kidney stones.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients (group A) with solitary kidney under 18 years of age who underwent PCNL between January 2015 and December 2021 were evaluated and analyzed. Forty-two patients (group B) with bilateral kidneys who underwent PCNL were determined as the control group and included in the analysis. Intraoperative and postoperative data such as demographic data, stone localization, bleeding and transfusion rates, operation time, complications, hospital stay, stone-free rates (SFR) and kidney function (glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)) were compared between the two groups. PCNL was performed with all patients in the prone position. Only a laser was used to fragment the stone in all cases. Stone-free was defined as the absence of residual stone fragments ≥ 2 mm in maximum diameter at 3 months on kidney, ureter and bladder (KUB) graphy, ultrasonography (US) or non-contrast tomography (NCCT).

RESULTS

The mean ages of the patients in Group A and B were 7.5 ± 2.6 and 8.5 ± 3.1 years, respectively. The mean stone size was 16.5 ± 4.1 and 17.0 ± 3.2 mm in group A and group B, respectively (p = 0.49). SFR rates in Groups A and B were 97.4% and 95.2% (p = 1.00). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of the operation time, perioperative blood transfusion, hemoglobin decrease and Clavien grade 1 complication rates (p > 0.05). However, double-J (JJ) stent placement, duration of nephrostomy and hospital stay were longer in the solitary kidney group (p < 0.05). There was a significant improvement in creatinine and eGFR levels in both groups at the postoperative sixth month (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that PCNL is a safe and effective method in pediatric patients with solitary kidneys.

Comparison between standard, mini and ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy for single renal stones: a prospective study

PURPOSE

Based on the current trend of miniaturization of instruments used in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), it is necessary to compare different PCNL modalities regarding their access sheath size used. Thus, the safety and efficacy among standard, mini and ultra-mini PCNL (s-PCNL, m-PCNL, um-PCNL) were compared.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, non-randomized trial between January 2018 and July 2020. Patients with stones classified as Guy's stone score grade I were included. The set-up for s-PCNL and m-PCNL included a 30 Fr and 22 Fr percutaneous tract, respectively. In both set-ups, an ultrasonic/ballistic lithotripter was utilized. In the case of um-PCNL, a 12 Fr percutaneous tract was established. A high-power laser was used for lithotripsy. Hemoglobin drop, complication rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), stone-free rate (SFR) and operation time were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients, 28 patients per method, were evaluated. Hemoglobin drop was higher in the s-PCNL group when compared to m-PCNL (p = 0.008) and um-PCNL groups (p < 0.001), while um-PCNL group had the slightest hemoglobin drop. LOS was similar between s-PCNL group and m-PCNL group, but um-PCNL group required shorter hospital stay than the other two modalities (p < 0.001). The complication and transfusion rates as well as SFR did not differ between groups. Operation time in the um-PCNL set-up was longer compared to s-PCNL (p < 0.001) and m-PCNL (p = 0.011), whereas s-PCNL and m-PCNL did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSION

m-PCNL showed less hemoglobin drop, but similar operation time and SFR when compared to s-PCNL. um-PCNL showed even less hemoglobin drop, but the operation time was longer compared to the two other modalities.

Ultramini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of 10-30 mm calculi: a randomized controlled trial

The surgical management of renal stones 10-30 mm is usually performed with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Standard form of percutaneous nephrolithotomy has paved the way for miniaturized PCNL in many centres. We wanted to evaluate the efficacy, safety and the cost-effectiveness of ultramini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP) versus RIRS in the treatment of renal stones with stone burden 10-30 mm. Patients with renal stone burden 10-30 mm were prospectively randomized into either UMP or RIRS. The demographic data, stone characteristic, operative time and cost of the equipment were recorded. The stone free status, analgesic requirement, deterioration of the renal function and hemoglobin and the postoperative complications as per Clavein-Dindo grade were recorded. One hundred and fifty patients met inclusion criteria. Out of these 98 underwent UMP and 46 RIRS. Six withdrew the consent before the procedure. Mean stone size was comparable in either of the groups. Mean laser time and stone extraction time was significantly less for UMP compared to RIRS (41.17 min versus 73.58 min p < 0.0001). Mean consumable costs in the UMP group were considerably less at US$45.73 compared to the RIRS group at $423.11 (p < 0.0001). The stone free rates at 1 month of follow-up were 100% for UMP group and 73% for RIRS group. There were insignificant changes to mean hemoglobin and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in all patients and the average length of the stay was similar in both the groups. The postoperative complications revealed Grade I and II rate of 10% in the UMP group and 35% in the RIRS group, respectively. We concluded that UMP to be safe, effective and more economical to the RIRS for renal stones up to 3 cm in size.Trial registered with ISRCTN registry ID ISRCTN20935105, Retrospective.

Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of renal stones over 2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sPCNL) is recommended for renal stones over 2cm. Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) has also emerged as a promising technique in this setting. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of sPCNL to mPCNL for the management of renal stones over 2cm.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases until April 2021 and sources of grey literature for relevant RCTs. We performed a meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) to compare bleeding or other complications and stone-free rate (SFR) between sPCNL and mPCNL. Similarly, we undertook a metaanalysis of weighted mean differences for the mean operative and hospitalization time between the two techniques (PROSPERO: CRD42021241860).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Pooled data from 8 RCTs (2535 patients) were available for analysis. sPCNL was associated with a higher hemoglobin drop (0.59g/dl, 95%CI: 0.4-0.77, I2=93%), higher likelihood of postoperative blood transfusion (OR: 2.58, 95%CI: 1.03-6.45, I2=30%) and longer hospital stay (0.75 days, 95%CI: 0.45-1.05, I2=73%) compared to mPCNL. No significant differences were demonstrated in SFR (OR: 0.92, 95%CI: 0.74-1.16, I2=0%) and mean operative time (4.05 minutes, 95%CI: -9.45-1.37, I2=91%) after sPCNL versus mPCNL. Similarly, no significant differences were observed for postoperative fever, pain and Clavien-Dindo complications.

CONCLUSIONS

mPCNL represents a safe and effective technique and may be also recommended as a first-line treatment modality for well-selected patients with renal stones over 2cm. Still, further high-quality RCTs on the field are mandatory, since the overall level of evidence is low.

Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Versus Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Kidney Stones >1cm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

CONTEXT

Although miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) are both options for treating >1cm kidney stones, controversies exist on whether one is more effective and safer than the other.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically appraise randomized trials comparing the effectiveness and safety of mPCNL and RIRS for treating >1cm kidney stones.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic search on PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted in August 2020 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). Randomized trials comparing mPCNL and RIRS for >1cm kidney stones, and reporting stone-free rate (SFR), hemoglobin drop, transfusion rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and/or complications, were included.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Eight studies compared mPCNL and RIRS, but one was not included due to its high risk of bias. SFR was higher for mPCNL (RR: 1.06 [95% coefficient interval {CI}, 1.01-1.10], p=0.008). Hemoglobin drop was higher for mPCNL (mean difference [MD]: 0.35 [95% CI, 0.05-0.65] g/dl, p=0.02); however, transfusion rates were similar (p=0.44). Complication rate was similar between mPCNL and RIRS (p=0.39), and the LOS was higher for mPCNL (MD: 1.11 [95% CI, 0.06-2.16] d, p=0.04). A subgroup analysis of lower pole stones showed that SFR was higher for mPCNL (RR: 1.09 [95% CI, 1.00-1.19], p=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both approaches are effective and safe. Among these approaches, mPCNL has a higher SFR than RIRS for overall >1cm renal and lower pole stones, but longer LOS, and a higher hemoglobin drop that does not translate into higher transfusion rates. Complications are comparable.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Randomized trials have evaluated whether miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery is more effective and safer for treating >1cm stones. After comparing the stone-free rate, hemoglobin drop, transfusion rate, length of hospital stay, and complications between both the approaches, mPCNL was found to be slightly more effective, but both were equally safe.

Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus shock wave lithotripsy for the medium-sized renal stones

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Miniperc) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for medium-sized renal stones.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was performed in February 2020 using the Pubmed, Web of Science and Embase. The outcome measurements between two procedures were stone-free rates (SFR), complication rates, operative time, hospitalization stay time, re-treatment rate, auxiliary procedures rate and efficiency quotient. Results were pooled by Review Manager version 5.3 software.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seven studies on 936 patients (N.=471 for SWL and N.=465 for Miniperc) were included. Miniperc was associated with a higher SFR (OR: 0.25; P<0.00001). In addition, we performed a subgroup analyses for pediatric renal stones and lower pole stones, pooled results also favored Miniperc for higher SFR. SWL was associated with higher auxiliary procedure (OR: 3.32; P<0.00001), higher re-treatment rate (OR: 19.19; P<0.00001) and lower EQ (OR: 0.18; P=0.0003) compared with Miniperc. Besides, SWL was associated with a lower complication rate (OR: 0.36; P=0.0001), shorter operative time (WMD: -34.01; P<0.00001), fluoroscopy time (WMD: -134.48; P<0.00001) and hospital time (WMD: -49.11; P<0.00001) compared with Miniperc.

CONCLUSIONS

Miniperc offers a significantly higher SFR, lower auxiliary procedure and re-treatment rate, but SWL was associated with fewer complications.

Introducing in clinical practice a new laser suction handpiece for percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Objective:

To assess a novel combined laser suction handpiece (LSH) for performing PCNL in a clinical setting.

Methods:

The study comprised 40 consecutive PCNLs performed between May 2019 and February 2020. The first 20 procedures (Group A) were performed with conventional ultrasonic or pneumatic devices and the other 20 (Group B) were performed with the use of the new LSH. All patients were treated by tubeless supine PCNL. The groups were compared for demographics, clinical data, operative time, lithotrite effectiveness, stone clearance rate (SCR), and outcome.

Results:

Groups A and B were similar in age, and in stone size, complexity, and density (Hounsfield units) (p < 0.05). The average operative time was 99 and 78 min, SCR 143 and 200 mm³/min, hospital stay 1.6 and 1.1 days, and stone-free rate 90% and 95%, respectively. Despite a trend toward better results with the new LSH, none of these comparisons reached statistical significance. Ineffective lithotripsy with the initial device (ultrasonic) requiring conversion to another modality (ballistic) occurred in six (30%) procedures in Group A, while all procedures were effectively accomplished with the LSH in Group B (p = 0.02). There were two complications in Group A and none in Group B (p > 0.05).

Conclusions:

The LSH is as effective and safe as the traditional lithotrites for performing PCNLs. This new tool completes the capabilities of the holmium laser high-power machines, enabling them to serve as the sole platform for all endourological treatments.

Changes in percutaneous approach to kidney stones in children: A single institute experience over 500 cases

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to identify the changes in patient age and stone sizes with technological advancement over time.

METHODS

This study was conducted retrospectively with 404 patients (504 renal units) who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) between January 1997 and June 2020. Patient characteristics and trends on instrument preferences were investigated.

RESULTS

Median age was 7 (1-18) years. Male to female ratio was 1.48:1 (301/203). Median stone burden was 2 cm² (0.20-25) and median operative time was 90 minutes (20-240). The stone-free rate was 74.6%. Patients were divided into four groups according to the size of the instrument. It was found that the size of sheath used increased significantly with increasing age and stone burden. The micro-PCNL group had the shortest hospitalisation and lowest blood transfusion rate. Chronologically categorised four equal groups were compared to analyse changing patient profiles and trends. Median patient age, stone burden, operation time, sheath size, blood transfusion and complication rates decreased significantly with time. However, the use of tracts smaller than 20F and the number of patients with previous intervention increased significantly.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that the patient's age and stone size at the time of initial diagnosis decrease over time while miniaturisation techniques increase in paediatric urology.

The Matryoshka technique in percutaneous nephrolithotomy

OBJECTIVE

Miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) reduces the risk of haemorrhagic complications, but the limited field of work represents a drawback. To obtain the best outcomes, the percutaneous access size should be intraoperatively tailored. Our purpose is to describe the indications and the procedural steps of the Matryoshka technique and to report its clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the data from consecutive Matryoshka PCNL procedures from October 2016 to January 2018. Collected data included patients' history, stone characteristics, intra- and post-operative items, stone clearance and need for retreatment. The main indication to the Matryoshka technique is the inability to securely position a guidewire due to an obstruction or narrowness in the pyelocalyceal system. This technique begins by puncturing the calyx hosting the stone and advancing a hydrophilic guidewire through the needle. If the guidewire cannot proceed beyond the stone, the Matryoshka technique is employed for tract stabilization. The tract is carefully dilated with small-bore instruments and a cautious lithotripsy is performed to create enough space to introduce the guidewire beyond the stone under visual control. Once the access has been stabilized the surgeon can upsize the tract to the optimum to complete the procedure. Additionally, the technique can be employed when an intraoperative reassessment induces the surgeon to further dilate the tract to quicken the procedure.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients were included, with a median stone volume of 3.49 cm3. Median operative time was 112 minutes. Three Clavien I-II (postoperative fever) and one Clavien IIIB (colon perforation) complications were reported. No blood transfusions were recorded. Three patients underwent scheduled retreatment as part of a multistep procedure. Out of the remaining 13 patients, 10 (76.9%) obtained a complete stone clearance.

CONCLUSIONS

The Matryoshka technique helps the urologist to obtain a secure percutaneous access and makes PCNL flexible and progressive, potentially minimizing the risk of access-related complications.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Ureteric Stones - State-of-the-Art Review

The landscape of managing ureteric stones has evolved over the last few decades and several treatment options exist depending on the stone size, location, and other patient and stone factors. While open surgery is now rarely performed, the use of medical expulsive therapy (MET) has been controversial and perhaps only recommended for large distal ureteric stones. The mainstay treatment balances between shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS), with the latter usually recommended for larger stones. While the principles of ureteric stone management have remained largely unchanged, the modern era has generated new methods and means to deliver it. Advancements have occurred in all domains of endourology to try and refine treatment and balance it with cost, patient choice and quality of life. Dissemination of technologies and demonstration of their efficacy and safety will eventually result in new recommendations among international guidelines and evolution of new gold standards.

Non papillary mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: early experience

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the non-papillary puncture for mini-PCNL in terms of safety and efficacy.

METHODS

A total number of 32 patients were subjected to mini-PCNL by the performance of non-papillary punctures over 6 months. One-step track dilation to 22 Fr took place in all cases. An 18 Fr nephroscope (Slender, Karl Storz GmbH, Germany) and an ultrasound lithotripter (Lithoclast Master, EMS S.A, Switzerland) with 9.9 Fr probe was used. Demographics and perioperative data are prospectively collected from an institutional board-approved database and the presented data were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

The average cumulative stone size was 23.53 ± 6.6 mm. Mean operative time was 44.6 ± 13.44 min and primary stone-free rate after PCNL was 96% and 85.7% for single and multiple access, respectively. Second access was performed in seven cases, all of which had multiple stones. Mean hemoglobin drop was 1.23 ± 0.88 gr/dL. The patients stayed 2.56 ± 0.98 days in the hospital. Overall complication rate was 9.37%, without encountering any severe bleeding complication.

CONCLUSION

Using non-papillary access for mini-PCNL did not result in significant blood loss and need for transfusions. The respective data were directly comparable to contemporary literature and the safety of mini-PCNL by a non-papillary approach could be advocated.

The Pattern of Day Case (Ambulatory) Percutaneous (PCNL): A Descriptive Retrospective Study from a Tertiary Care Hospital

Background: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has experienced remarkable development and alteration since it was first described in 1976 by Fernstorm et al. It has also experienced miniaturization of equipment, improvement in operative systems, and refining renal access methods leading to the achievement of maximum clearance of stone while causing minimal morbidity. For example, in endourological practice, when the patient is subjected to PCNL, he traditionally needs programmed inpatient admission, as part of their recovery, it is applicable as an outpatient method in properly selected cases. Objectives: We aimed at evaluating the safety and applicability of the outpatient PCNL procedure. Methods: This retrospective study was done on 210 cases of tubeless PCNL performed by a single urologist at our institute from January 2016 to January 2019. Patients’ mean age (134 males and 76 females) was 57 ± 11.8 years, and 7 patients aged 8 - 12 years. There were 71 pelvic or calyceal solitary stones, 62 non-complete staghorn stones, 17 ureteral stones, 32 renal + ureteric stones (simultaneous renal and ureteral stones) , and 28 complete staghorn stones. The average stone size was 3.5 ± 2.8 (range: 0.7 to 11.8 cm). Results: The mean operation duration was 85.0 ± 29.4 min, and the mean hospital stay was 21.7 ± 3.4 h. Out of 210 patients, 6 patients had longer stay due to high-grade fever and 3 patients due to severe pain, and also 7 patients refused discharge due to personal and social reasons. Our ambulatory PCNL rate was 97 % ( 194 out of 210). Within 72 h, 5 patients were readmitted due to high-grade fever, 3 patients due to haematuria, and 4 patients due to pain and dysuria, and all patients were discharged 2 - 4 days after conservative treatment. Thus, the readmission rate was 6.18% (12 cases were readmitted out of 194 cases). Patients showed a blood transfusion rate of 1.4 %. Also, 19 cases (9.02%) were found with post-operative fever, and no urosepsis was reported. No pulmonary complications and mortality were noted. No re-exploration was done, and no major leak was noted. The angio-embolization rate was 0.59%. We did not use HEMO-SEAL technology, cautery, or suture in the tracks. Conclusions: In conclusion, the outpatient PCNL procedure is an applicable and feasible procedure under selected criteria; however, more investigations using a larger sample size are needed.

Precision Stone Surgery: Current Status of Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Innovations in lasers and surgical technology have led to a renewed interest in the miniaturization of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). We review the different approaches and evidence on the efficacy of mini-PCNL.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mini-PCNL encompasses a range of techniques using tract sizes from 4.8 to 22 F to treat renal stones. The most common device uses irrigation to passively extract stones out of the sheath. Super-mini-PCNL incorporates active suction. Ultra- and micro-techniques reduce the tract to smaller diameters. Laser fragmentation is the main lithotripsy modality. Studies demonstrate an association with reduced complications, hospital stay, and increased tubeless rate. Drawbacks include longer operative times while stone-free rates for larger stones may be sub-optimal. Mini-PCNL has advantages of less trauma and the avoidance of nephrostomy tubes. Ambulatory surgery is feasible in select patients. Advances in laser lithotripsy and active suction have the potential to improve stone clearance and treat larger stones.

Flexible ureteroscopy versus miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones of 1-2 cm

Technological advances and innovation in endourology have significantly reduced the indications of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the management of moderate-sized renal stones. In the last decade, we have witnessed a trend towards the use of finer scopes for percutaneous procedures instead of standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) (≥22 Fr). Miniaturized PCNL (mPCNL), i.e. miniPCNL (12–20 Fr), ultra-miniPCNL (11–13 Fr), mini-microPCNL (8 Fr), and microPCNL (<5 Fr), is increasingly being used. Concomitant developments in laser technology have provided a safe and effective stone fragmentation modality for use via flexible ureteroscopes (fURS). Technological advances in the design of fURS have improved not only the optics (fiber optic to chip-on-the-tip technology digital image) but also the ergonomics. Both the endourological techniques are extremely effective and safe, as shown in a multitude of good-quality studies. There are some differences in stone-free rate and complications. mPCNL in general has a higher stone-free rate, albeit with a slightly higher incidence of hemorrhagic complications. fURS often requires longer stenting time and longer period to achieve stone clearance, whereas mPCNL often needs ureteral catheter for only 24 hours and has a higher first day stone-free rate. fURS is a 1 day procedure compared to mPCNL, which requires patients to stay hospitalized for 2–3 days. It is therefore important to tailor the indications of these two procedures to the individual patient’s needs.

Role of Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Pediatric Stone Disease: A Systematic Review of Literature

Introduction: Kidney stone disease in the pediatric setting is rare, but the incidence is rising. Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) is one of the newer surgical interventions to have been developed in recent decades. The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review (SR) to formally evaluate the safety and efficacy of pediatric mPCNL, which was defined as PCNLs using tract size between 15F and 20F. Methods: An SR was carried out in accordance with Cochrane guidelines and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Original studies reporting on outcomes of mPCNL with 20 or more patients (aged ≤18 years) were included. Results: Eight studies were finally identified, which satisfied our predefined criteria. This included two randomized trials and six cohort studies. A total of 384 patients with a weighted mean age of 7.5 years (range: 0.5-18 years) and a male:female ratio of 3:2 underwent mPCNL. The weighted mean stone size was 1.2 cm (range: 0.8-3.5 cm). The weighted mean operative time and length of hospital stay were 76.8 minutes (range: 20-120 minutes) and 4.6 days (range: 1-33 days), respectively. The most common location(s) of stones were lower pole (57%) and renal pelvis (24.3%). The weighted mean initial and overall stone-free rates were 87.9% (range: 76%-97.5%) and 97% (range: 91.3%-100%), respectively. None of the cases required intraoperative conversion to standard PCNL. Complications occurred in 19% (n = 73) of patients. The weighted mean transfusion rate reported across studies was 3.3% (range: 0%-10.3%). Conclusions: mPCNL is safe and effective in the pediatric population. Further randomized studies will help determine its formal role in pediatric endourology and help guideline recommendations accordingly.

Risk factors for the fever after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a retrospective analysis

Background

It’s very common to see the onset of fever after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), it’s necessary to analyze the risk factors for the fever following PCNL, and to provide evidence for infection prevention after PCNL.

Methods

A total of 546 adult PCNL patients were included as study subjects and retrospective studies were performed. We collected clinical data of patients using a prospectively designed database. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the potential risk factors for the fever after PCNL.

Results

Of the included 546 PCNL patients, there were 82 fever patients and 464 no-fever patients following PCNL. Escherichia coli and Proteus mirabilis are the two most common infectious bacteria. Preoperative urinary tract infection (OR =4.38, 95% CI: 1.15–9.53), multiple access (OR =5.31, 95% CI: 1.23–10.75), diabetes (OR =4.97, 95% CI: 1.37–9.86), length of operation ≥60 min (OR =5.67, 95% CI: 2.24–13.42), estimated blood loss in PCNL ≥500 mL (OR=2.78, 95% CI: 2.32–3.61) were the independent risk factors associated with postoperative infection.

Conclusions

Effective control of urinary tract infection, reduction of access number, strict control of blood glucose, length of operation control, reduction of intraoperative bleeding should be considered as measures to prevent postoperative fever for patients with PCNL.

Tract sizes in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: does miniaturization improve outcome?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide a summary of surgical outcomes in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) according to various techniques and tract sizes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature in this field concluded that standard PCNL (sPCNL) remains the optimal treatment for stones between 1 and 2.5 cm and can be managed with tracts 14-20 F, whereas small stones less than 1.5 cm can be treated with tracts under 14 F. According to new datasets, smaller tracts can be equally effective in the treatment and might offer the possibility to reduce bleeding, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain as well as overall complication rates when compared with sPCNL. On the other hand, longer operative time as well as lower stone-free rates, which have been the main drawbacks of the miniaturized approach, have recently shown to be comparable with sPCNL.

SUMMARY

At present, tract size is a highly debatable topic in percutaneous stone therapy. New systems for miniaturized PCNL have been developed to achieve comparable stone-free rates while reducing the incidence of common complications. The adoption of these techniques demands skilled surgeons and institutional investment for the acquisition of new equipment.

The Influence of Super-Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy on Renal Pelvic Pressure In Vivo

OBJECTIVE

Renal pelvic pressure (RPP) is expected to rise during percutaneous procedures. A very small tract size was expected to bring high RPP, and super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) uses a 14F sheath, which is even smaller than that used in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, so the RPP in SMP was more worrisome. Interestingly, the sheath had suction, which aimed to decrease the RPP, so we measured the RPP in an in vivo model to explore the relationship of implying negative pressure through the sheath with the RPP.

METHODS

Seventy-four consecutive patients were enrolled for RPP measurement during SMP between April 2016 and July 2017. Prospective RPP measurements were recorded using the MINDRAY-PM9000 monitor by connecting its baroceptor of the invasive blood pressure channel to a retrogradely inserted renal pelvic open-ended ureteric catheter. RPP data were collected each second by a computer program. All data were evaluated statistically with SPSS 13.0 software.

RESULTS

During SMP with a 14F irrigation-suction sheath, the average RPP was 19.51 ± 5.83 mm Hg. The median accumulative time of RPP ≥30 mm Hg was 55 (3-345) seconds. Postoperative fever was recorded in four patients (5.4%). A receiver operating characteristic -curve analysis showed that when suction pressure was set to 0.03 Mpa (≈230 mm Hg), irrigation pressure between 200 and 250 mm Hg, and the irrigation flow to 320 mL/minute, the accumulative high RPP was more likely <50 seconds, and the sensitivity and specificity were 75.0% and 66.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The RPP in SMP remains <30 mm Hg. Controlling the pressures as well as the flow of irrigating saline is important for the safety and efficiency of percutaneous procedures.

Safety and Efficacy of Day-case Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review from European Society of Uro-technology

CONTEXT

Day case or ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has risen over the last few years with the aim of discharging patients within 24h.

OBJECTIVE

We perform a systematic review of literature to evaluate the outcomes of day-case PCNL surgery.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A Cochrane style search was performed and the following bibliographic databases were accessed: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. This was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All studies in the English language reporting on PCNL patients discharged within 24h were included.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Based on the literature search of 97 articles, nine (502 patients) met the inclusion criteria (mean age: 47 yr), with a mean stone size of 20.5mm. The mean operating time was 66min, and over a mean hospital stay of 17.5h, the stone-free rate was 95%. The overall complication rate was 13.5%; the vast majority of these complications were Clavien I-II complications, with a readmission rate of 3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Day-case PCNL is a safe and feasible strategy in carefully selected cases. However, for its success, detailed planning and adherence to surgical protocol are paramount with strict criteria for inpatient admission and a thorough follow-up plan.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Day-case percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedure seems to be a safe procedure with good outcomes, and low risk of complications and readmissions. Detailed preoperative protocol and planning are paramount, with indications for inpatient admission as well as a thorough follow-up plan.

Miniaturisation of PCNL

Conventional PCNL leads to a high stone-free rate but is associated with a significant treatment morbidity. To decrease the morbidity of PCNL but to achieve an equal stone-free rate, in 2001 a miniaturised version of a conventional PCNL (Mini-PCNL) was introduced. Meanwhile numerous modifications of the Mini-PCNL were reported. The ongoing experience with the Mini-PCNL technique showed that Mini-PCNL is not only a miniaturisation but also a different method to remove the stones, as the stones come out of the calyceal system only by means of the irrigation flow without any further need of forceps or baskets. Due to a limited number of papers in the literature, the guidelines so far do not distinguish between conventional and Mini-PCNL, although the Mini-PCNL already became a frequent treatment modality in daily routine worldwide. From the current point of view, Mini-PCNL can be recommended to treat all kinds of upper urinary tract stones exceeding a diameter of 10 mm. In this context, Mini-PCNL is a treatment alternative to flexible ureterorenoscopy, SWL and conventional PCNL. The available literature shows that the morbidity of Mini-PCNL is less and the stone-free rate is equal to that of conventional PCNL. It seems that there is no limitation to Mini-PCNL in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones. The future will show what kind of further miniaturisation of the Mini-PCNL procedure will be appropriate.