Advantages of tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of preschool children under 3 years old

Comparative analysis of standard, tubeless and total tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A prospective study

INTRODUCTION

This study was done to review and compare safety, effectiveness and advantages of total tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), tubeless PCNL with standard PCNL.

METHODOLOGY

This prospective comparative study involving 30 patients in each total tubeless PCNL, tubeless PCNL and standard PCNL group from Feb 2021 to June 2022.

RESULT

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

Pediatric Stone Surgery: What Is Hot and What Is Not

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We aim to highlight recent advances in technology and techniques for surgical management of urinary tract calculi in pediatric patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is classically performed in the prone position. The supine PCNL was first attempted to overcome the shortcomings of difficult airway access, patient and surgeon discomfort. The supine PCNL, and subsequent modifications, has been successfully described in the pediatric population. Classically, PCNL has also been classically concluded with obligate placement of a nephrostomy tube and bladder catheter. Recently, tubeless and totally tubeless PCNL reduces pain and duration of hospitalization with satisfactory surgical outcomes in children. Finally, we describe the use of thulium laser technology, which offers improved efficacy in stone treatment and may supplant the current dominant technologies in coming years. Recent advances in pediatric stone surgery include supine PCNL, miniaturized PCNL instrumentation, tubeless procedures, and thulium laser technology.

THE FUNCTIONAL STATE OF THE RENAL PARENCHYMA AFTER VARIOUS VIDEO ENDOSURGICAL METHODS OF TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH LARGE AND COMPLEX KIDNEY STONES

The work is based on the analysis of literature data devoted to the problem of preserving the functional state of the kidneys with various video endoscopic methods of surgical treatment of large and complex kidney stones. The purpose of the review is to highlight the likelihood of deterioration in the functional state of the kidneys in the postoperative period. A detailed analysis of postoperative outcomes in various minimally invasive methods of treatment of patients with large and complex kidney stones was carried out, with an overview of the possibility of using dynamic nephroscintigraphy as a method of objectively assessing the functional state of the kidneys.

Technique, complications, and outcomes of pediatric urolithiasis management at a tertiary care hospital: evolving paradigms over the last 15 years

BACKGROUND

Despite technological advancements, there is lack of consensus for the standard treatment modalities for pediatric urolithiasis.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to review the management of pediatric urolithiasis over the last 15 years in terms of technical modifications, surgical outcomes, and complications. The secondary objective was to compare the efficacy and outcomes of standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and mini-PCNL for renal and upper ureteric calculi.

STUDY DESIGN

Medical records of all patients aged <18 years who presented to the authors' tertiary care hospital in northern India between August 2003 and December 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Before 2010, all PCNLs performed were standard PCNL, whereas after 2010, most PCNLs performed were mini-PCNL. Thus, the patients were divided into two groups: group A (patients up to 2010) and group B (patients after 2010). These were compared for the type of treatment, success rate, and complications. The outcomes of surgical management of lower ureteric and vesical calculi were also reviewed.

RESULTS

During this period, there were 580 children with urolithiasis (677 stone sites). There were 265 patients (321 stone sites) in group A and 315 patients (356 stone sites) in group B. The median age was seven years (range: 3-18 years). The most common location of calculus was the collecting system of the kidney (n = 398, 58.8%). A total of 175 stone sites (25.8%) were located in the ureter. Urinary bladder calculi were seen in 43 (6.4%) patients. Multiple stones were seen in 61 sites (9.0%). A total of 115 patients in group A underwent standard PCNL, whereas in group B, nine patients underwent standard PCNL and 129 underwent mini-PCNL. Group B had a significantly higher stone clearance rate for mini-PCNL (P < 0.001). Minor complications (grades 1 and 2) accounted for a majority of overall complications in both groups (87.5% in group A and 94.9% in group B).

DISCUSSION

Mini-PCNL is an excellent option for renal calculi in children as it offers dual advantages of improved stone clearance and reduced major complications such as bleeding. Ureteroscopic lithotripsy has been established as the standard for small lower ureteric calculi.

CONCLUSION

For renal and upper ureteric calculi, mini-PCNL has evolved as standard technique with a high stone-free rate and minimum complications compared with standard PCNL. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL)/retrograde intrarenal surgery are acceptable alternatives for smaller stone burden. For lower ureteric and vesical calculi, retrograde approaches such as cystolithotripsy and URSL have now become the standard of care.

Reprint - Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children: A Cochrane Review

INTRODUCTION

We performed systematic review to assess the effects of different medical and surgical management of urinary stones in children.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials), trials registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov), and abstract proceedings of major urological and pediatric urology meetings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until December 2017. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane "Risk of bias" tool. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE.

RESULTS

We included 14 studies with a total of 978 randomized participants in our review, informing seven comparisons with shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy (regardless of the type of lithotripsy), open stone surgery, and medical expulsive therapy. There was very low quality of evidence in the most comparisons with regards to the effectiveness and adverse events for the treatment of pediatric upper renal tract stone disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on mostly very low-quality evidence for most comparisons and outcomes, we are uncertain about the effect of nearly all medical and surgical interventions to treat stone disease in children. There is a critical need for better-quality trials assessing patient-important outcomes in children with stone disease to inform future guidelines on the management of this condition.

Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children

BACKGROUND

Urolithiasis is a condition where crystalline mineral deposits (stones) form within the urinary tract. Urinary stones can be located in any part of the urinary tract. Affected children may present with abdominal pain, blood in the urine or signs of infection. Radiological evaluation is used to confirm the diagnosis, to assess the size of the stone, its location, and the degree of possible urinary obstruction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different medical and surgical interventions in the treatment of urinary tract stones of the kidney or ureter in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted an electronic search for conference abstracts for the years 2012 to 2017. The date of the last search of all electronic databases was 31 December 2017 and we applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at interventions for upper urinary tract stones in children. These included shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy, open surgery and medical expulsion therapy for upper urinary tract stones in children aged 0 to 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane guidance. Two review authors independently searched and assessed studies for eligibility and conducted data extraction. 'Risk of bias' assessments were completed by three review authors independently. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies with a total of 978 randomised participants in our review, informing eight comparisons. The studies contributing to most comparisons were at high or unclear risk of bias for most domains.Shock wave lithotripsy versus dissolution therapy for intrarenal stones: based on one study (87 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on stone-free rate (SFR), serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Slow shock wave lithotripsy versus rapid shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (60 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy for renal and distal ureteric stones: based on three studies (153 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Shock wave lithotripsy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (212 participants), SWL likely has a lower SFR (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97; moderate quality evidence); this corresponds to 113 fewer stone-free patients per 1000 (189 fewer to 28 fewer). SWL may reduce severe adverse events (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 66 fewer serious adverse events or complications per 1000 (74 fewer to 2 fewer). Rates of secondary procedures may be higher (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.20; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to 85 more secondary procedures per 1000 (1 more to 294 more).Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (23 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (70 participants), SFR are likely similar (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; moderate-quality evidence); this corresponds to 28 more per 1,000 (66 fewer to 132 more). We did not find any data relating to serious adverse events. Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about secondary procedures.Alpha-blockers versus placebo with or without analgesics for distal ureteric stones: based on six studies (335 participants), alpha-blockers may increase SFR (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.54; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 199 more stone-free patients per 1000 (94 more to 317 more). Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about serious adverse events or complications and secondary procedures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on mostly very low-quality evidence for most comparisons and outcomes, we are uncertain about the effect of nearly all medical and surgical interventions to treat stone disease in children.Common reasons why we downgraded our assessments of the quality of evidence were: study limitations (risk of bias), indirectness, and imprecision. These issues make it difficult to draw clinical inferences. It is important that affected individuals, clinicians, and policy-makers are aware of these limitations of the evidence. There is a critical need for better quality trials assessing patient-important outcomes in children with stone disease to inform future guidelines on the management of this condition.

Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children

BACKGROUND

Urolithiasis is a condition where crystalline mineral deposits (stones) form within the urinary tract. Urinary stones can be located in any part of the urinary tract. Affected children may present with abdominal pain, blood in the urine or signs of infection. Radiological evaluation is used to confirm the diagnosis, to assess the size of the stone, its location, and the degree of possible urinary obstruction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different medical and surgical interventions in the treatment of urinary tract stones of the kidney or ureter in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted an electronic search for conference abstracts for the years 2012 to 2017. The date of the last search of all electronic databases was 31 December 2017 and we applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at interventions for upper urinary tract stones in children. These included shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy, open surgery and medical expulsion therapy for upper urinary tract stones in children aged 0 to 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane guidance. Two review authors independently searched and assessed studies for eligibility and conducted data extraction. 'Risk of bias' assessments were completed by three review authors independently. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies with a total of 978 randomised participants in our review, informing eight comparisons. The studies contributing to most comparisons were at high or unclear risk of bias for most domains.Shock wave lithotripsy versus dissolution therapy for intrarenal stones: based on one study (87 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on stone-free rate (SFR), serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Slow shock wave lithotripsy versus rapid shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (60 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy for renal and distal ureteric stones: based on three studies (153 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Shock wave lithotripsy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (212 participants), SWL likely has a lower SFR (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97; moderate quality evidence); this corresponds to 113 fewer stone-free patients per 1000 (189 fewer to 28 fewer). SWL may reduce severe adverse events (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 66 fewer serious adverse events or complications per 1000 (74 fewer to 2 fewer). Rates of secondary procedures may be higher (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.20; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to 85 more secondary procedures per 1000 (1 more to 294 more).Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (23 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (70 participants), SFR are likely similar (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; moderate-quality evidence); this corresponds to 28 more per 1,000 (66 fewer to 132 more). We did not find any data relating to serious adverse events. Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about secondary procedures.Alpha-blockers versus placebo with or without analgesics for distal ureteric stones: based on six studies (335 participants), alpha-blockers may increase SFR (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.54; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 199 more stone-free patients per 1000 (94 more to 317 more). Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about serious adverse events or complications and secondary procedures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on mostly very low-quality evidence for most comparisons and outcomes, we are uncertain about the effect of nearly all medical and surgical interventions to treat stone disease in children.Common reasons why we downgraded our assessments of the quality of evidence were: study limitations (risk of bias), indirectness, and imprecision. These issues make it difficult to draw clinical inferences. It is important that affected individuals, clinicians, and policy-makers are aware of these limitations of the evidence. There is a critical need for better quality trials assessing patient-important outcomes in children with stone disease to inform future guidelines on the management of this condition.

Research progress of percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is generally accepted as the gold standard treatment for the treatment of large kidney stones (> 2 cm). For nearly 40 years, with the continuous progress of technology and the constant updating of ideas, PCNL has made great progress. In this review, we discuss the current research progress, recent advancement and hot spot of the whole process of PCNL including anesthesia, position, puncture, dilation, lithotripsy approaches, perfusate, tube placement, hospitalization time, drug, treatment of residual stones, prognosis judgment and operation evaluation by summarizing the related research in this article.

Tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update meta-analysis

Background

To update a previously published systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

Methods

A systematic literature search of EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed to confirm relevant studies. The scientific literature was screened in accordance with the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. After quality assessment and data extraction from the eligible studies, a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata SE 12.0.

Results

Fourteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1148 patients were included. Combined results demonstrated that tubeless PCNL was significantly associated with shorter operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD], −3.79 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], −6.73 to −0.85; P = 0.012; I² = 53.8%), shorter hospital stay (WMD, −1.27 days; 95% CI, −1.65 to −0.90; P < 0.001; I² = 98.7%), faster time to return to normal activity (WMD, −4.24 days; 95% CI, −5.76 to −2.71; P < 0.001; I² = 97.5%), lower postoperative pain scores (WMD, −16.55 mm; 95% CI, −21.60 to −11.50; P < 0.001; I² = 95.7%), less postoperative analgesia requirements (standard mean difference, −1.09 mg; 95% CI, −1.35 to −0.84; P < 0.001; I² = 46.8%), and lower urine leakage (Relative risk [RR], 0.30; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.59; P = 0.001; I² = 41.2%). There were no significant differences in postoperative hemoglobin reduction (WMD, −0.02 g/dL; 95% CI, −0.04 to 0.01; P = 0.172; I² = 41.5%), stone-free rate (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.05; P = 0.776; I² = 0.0%), postoperative fever rate (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.93; P = 0.867; I² = 0.0%), or blood transfusion rate (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.70; P = 0.538; I² = 0.0%). The results of subgroup analysis were consistent with the overall findings. The sensitivity analysis indicated that most results remained constant when total tubeless or partial tubeless or mini-PCNL studies were excluded respectively.

Conclusions

Tubeless PCNL is an available and safe option in carefully evaluated and selected patients. It is significantly associated with the advantages of shorter hospital stay, shorter time to return to normal activity, lower postoperative pain scores, less analgesia requirement, and reduced urine leakage.

Tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To update a previously published systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed to confirm relevant studies. The scientific literature was screened in accordance with the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. After quality assessment and data extraction from the eligible studies, a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata SE 12.0.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1148 patients were included. Combined results demonstrated that tubeless PCNL was significantly associated with shorter operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD], -3.79 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.73 to -0.85; P = 0.012; I² = 53.8%), shorter hospital stay (WMD, -1.27 days; 95% CI, -1.65 to -0.90; P < 0.001; I² = 98.7%), faster time to return to normal activity (WMD, -4.24 days; 95% CI, -5.76 to -2.71; P < 0.001; I² = 97.5%), lower postoperative pain scores (WMD, -16.55 mm; 95% CI, -21.60 to -11.50; P < 0.001; I² = 95.7%), less postoperative analgesia requirements (standard mean difference, -1.09 mg; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.84; P < 0.001; I² = 46.8%), and lower urine leakage (Relative risk [RR], 0.30; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.59; P = 0.001; I² = 41.2%). There were no significant differences in postoperative hemoglobin reduction (WMD, -0.02 g/dL; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.01; P = 0.172; I² = 41.5%), stone-free rate (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.05; P = 0.776; I² = 0.0%), postoperative fever rate (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.93; P = 0.867; I² = 0.0%), or blood transfusion rate (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.70; P = 0.538; I² = 0.0%). The results of subgroup analysis were consistent with the overall findings. The sensitivity analysis indicated that most results remained constant when total tubeless or partial tubeless or mini-PCNL studies were excluded respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Tubeless PCNL is an available and safe option in carefully evaluated and selected patients. It is significantly associated with the advantages of shorter hospital stay, shorter time to return to normal activity, lower postoperative pain scores, less analgesia requirement, and reduced urine leakage.

Tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the post-operative outcomes between tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) among children.

Methods:

Literature searches were performed following the Cochrane guidelines. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included three trials investigating the outcomes including the length of hospital stay, operation time, hemoglobin decrease, blood transfusion rate, perirenal fluid presence, post-operative fever, stone clearance rate, and the need for a second operation.

Results:

The patients who underwent tubeless PCNL had shorter length of hospitalization compared to standard PCNLs (mean difference -1.57, 95% confidence interval -3.2 to 0.07, p = 0.06). No significant decrease was detected in hemoglobin after tubeless PCNL compared to standard PCNL (mean difference 0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.03 to 0.13, p = 0.21). There were no significant differences in operation time (p = 0.7), perirenal fluid presence (p = 0.15), post-operative fever (p = 0.72), stone clearance (p = 0.68), and the need for a second operation (p = 0.90).

Conclusions:

This study showed no significant difference between tubeless and standard PCNLs in children. However, due to the lack of data, the results should be mentioned prudently. Future randomized trials with more sample sizes and longer follow-ups are warranted.