Retrospective study of single-use digital flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 1.5-2.5cm lower pole renal stones

PURPOSE

Retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical information of patients with 1.5-2.5 cm lower pole renal stones treated by single-use digital flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (fURS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in affiliated hospital of the Nantong University from January 2020 to December 2022. To compare the safety and efficacy of single-use fURS and MPCNL in the treatment from 1.5cm to 2.5cm lower pole renal stones.

METHODS

Clinical information of 141 patients were collected and divided into single-use fURS group and MPCNL group according to their treatment methods, including 83 patients in the single-use fURS group and 58 patients in the MPCNL group. Baseline data, data on the clinical characteristics of stones, laboratory examination data, operation time, and postoperative data of the two groups were collected. Statistical analysis was made on the collected data to analyze the differences and causes between the two groups of patients.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the baseline data and preoperative clinical features of 141 patients between the two groups (P > 0.05). In comparison of postoperative serum indexes, the drop values of hemoglobin and creatinine in single-use fURS group were lower than those in MPCNL group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The stone free rate was higher in the MPCNL group than in the single-use fURS group on the first day after surgery. At the 1st month after surgery, the two groups were similar. At 3rd month after surgery, the single-use fURS group was slightly higher than the MPCNL group, with no statistical significance (P > 0.05). The total complication rate in single-use fURS group was slightly lower than that in MPCNL group, but there was no statistical significance (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-use fURS has similar safety and efficacy to MPCNL in the treatment of 1.5-2.5cm lower pole renal stones. Single-use fURS may be a new option for the treatment of these stones.

Optimizing stone harvesting in miniaturized-PCNL: a critical examination of renal access angles, technology, and the role they play in operative efficiency

PURPOSE

Stone retrieval can be a laborious aspect of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). A unique phenomenon of mini-PCNL is the vortex-effect (VE), a hydrodynamic form of stone retrieval. Additionally, the vacuum-assisted sheath (VAS) was recently developed as a new tool for stone extraction. The purpose of our study is to investigate the impact of renal access angle (as a surrogate for patient positioning) on stone retrieval efficiency and compare the efficiency among methods of stone retrieval.

METHODS

A kidney model was filled with 3 mm artificial stones. Access to the mid-calyx was obtained using a 15Fr sheath. Stones were retrieved over three minutes at angles of 0°, 25°, and 75° utilizing the VE, VAS, and basket. Stones were weighed for comparison of stones/retraction and stones/minute. Trials were repeated three times at each angle.

RESULTS

Renal access angle of 0° was associated with increased stone retrieval for both the VE and VAS (p < 0.05). The VE was the most effective method for stones retrieved per individual retraction at an angle of 0° (p < 0.005), although when analyzed as stones retrieved per minute, the VE and VAS were no longer statistically different (p = 0.08). At 75°, none of the methods were statistically different, regardless if analyzed as stones per retraction or per minute (p = 0.20-0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Renal access angle of 0° is more efficient for stone retrieval than a steep upward angle. There is no difference in stone retrieval efficiency between the VE and VAS methods, although both are superior to the basket at lower sheath angles.

Stone attenuation on computer tomography helps surgeons make decisions between miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy or retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole stones: a retrospective study

A retrospective study was performed on 200 patients who underwent miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for 10-20 mm sized lower pole renal calculi to investigate the relationship between computed tomography (CT) attenuation of calculi and surgical outcomes. CT was used to examine the location, size, and CT attenuation values of the calculi. Additionally, the operation time, hospital stay, hemoglobin (Hb) reduction, stone-free rate (SFR), and complication rate were also meticulously documented and subjected to comparative analysis. Complications were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo grading system. We observed no significant differences in hospitalization data and follow-up outcomes, except for a longer hospital stay and higher Hb drops in patients receiving mini-PCNL. Statistical analysis revealed an association between CT attenuation and operation time. Compared with mini-PCNL, RIRS could reduce bleeding, hospital stay, surgery time, and complications for 10-20 mm sized lower pole kidney stones with CT values < 1000 HU. RIRS resulted in longer operation time and lower stone-free rates despite shorter hospital stays and less bleeding than mini-PCNL for stones with CT values > 1000 HU. Therefore, selecting an appropriate surgical method based on CT attenuation might improve outcomes. For patients with stone attenuation values < 1000 HU, RIRS is the recommended option. When stone attenuation values > 1000 HU, the surgical method should be chosen based on the patient's individual situation.

Comparison of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery: Which is more effective for 10-20 mm renal stones in children?

OBJECTIVE

To compare miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in children with 10-20 mm renal stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2015 and 2019, 63 pediatric patients aged under 16 years who under went mini-PNL and RIRS for the treatment of kidney stones sized 10-20 mm were analyzed retrospectively. The mini-PNL group (n=30) was defined as group 1 and the RIRS group (n=33) was defined as group 2. Peri-operative data including stone-free rate, operative time, fluoroscopy time, hospitalization time, number of anesthesia sessions, complication rates, and cost-effectiveness were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age was 8.09±5.49 years in group 1 and 5.75±4.56 years in group 2. The stone free rate was not different at the first (80.0% vs. 57.6%) and third month (93.3% vs. 90.9%) follow-up in group 1 and group 2. The mean hospitalization, operative, and fluoroscopy times were statistically significantly longer in group 1. The mean number of anesthesia sessions for patients was 1.20±0.40 in group 1 and 2.15±0.44 in group 2 (p=0.00). Minor complication rates were not different and no major complications were observed in either group. The cost per patient was calculated as 365.97 Euros in group 1 and 698.64 Euros in group 2 (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested that RIRS was an effective alternative treatment method for 10-20 mm kidney stones in children, with comparable stone-free and complication rates. RIRS has a shorter operative time, fluoroscopy time, hospital stay than mini-PNL, with a similar stone-free rate for 10-20 mm kidney stones in children. However, mini-PNL is cheaper and allowed a lower need for anesthesia sessions.

Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat lower pole renal stones 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter

AIM

To compare the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) in treating lower pole (LP) renal stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm.

METHODS

A total of 216 patients who underwent mini-PCNL (n = 103) or RIRS n = 113) for LP stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm were enrolled between December 2015 and April 2017 at the Urology Department of Ningbo Urology and Nephrology Hospital.

RESULTS

Significant differences were found in the hospital stay (9.39 ± 4.01 vs 14.08 ± 5.26, P < 0.0001) and hospitalization costs (2624.5 ± 513.36 vs 3255.2 ± 976.5, P < 0.0001) between the RIRS and mini-PCNL groups. The mean operation time was not significantly different between the RIRS group (56.48 ± 24.77) and the mini-PCNL group (60.04 ± 30.38, P = 0.345). The stone-free rates at the first postoperative day (RIRS vs mini-PCNL: 90.2% vs 93.2%, P = 0.822) and the second month postoperatively (RIRS vs mini-PCNL: 93.8% vs 95.1%, P = 0.986) were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

RIRS and mini-PCNL are both safe and effective methods for treating LP stones with a diameter of 1.5-2.5 cm. RIRS can be considered as an alternative to PCNL for the treatment for LP stones of 1.5-2.5 cm.

Comparison of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of large kidney stones: a randomized prospective study

We aimed to compare the outcomes of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) and standard PNL techniques in the treatment of renal stones ≥ 2 cm. The study was designed as a randomized prospective study between January 2016 and April 2017. The patients with a kidney stone ≥ 2 cm were included in the study. Patients who had uncorrectable bleeding diathesis, abnormal renal anatomy, skeletal tract abnormalities, pregnant patients and pediatric patients (< 18 years old) were excluded from the study. The remaining patients were randomly divided into two groups as standard PNL and mPNL. For both group, demographic data, stone characteristics, operative data and postoperative data were recorded prospectively. The study included 160 consecutive patients who had kidney stone ≥ 2 cm. Of these, patients who met the exclusion criteria and patients who had missing data were excluded from the study. Remaining 97 patients were randomly divided into two groups as mPNL (n: 46) and standard PNL (n: 51). The mean age was 46.9 ± 13.7 and 47.4 ± 13.9 years for mPNL group and sPNL group, respectively. According to Clavien-Dindo classification, no statistical difference was detected between the groups in terms of complication rates (p 0.31). However, the rates of hemoglobin drop and transfusion rates were significantly in favour of mPNL (p 0.012 and p 0.018, respectively). Nephrostomy time and hospitalization time was found to be significantly shorter in mPNL group (p 0.017 and p 0.01, respectively). The success rate in the mPCNL group was higher than standard PNL group, however, this difference was statistically insignificant (76.5 vs 71.7%, p 0.59). Both mPNL and standard PNL are safe and effective treatment techniques for the treatment of kidney stones of ≥ 2 cm. Although there was no significant difference in success rates of both techniques; nephrostomy time, hospitalization time, bleeding and transfusion rates were in favour of mPNL.