Literature DB >> 20575685

Do patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? A comparative prospective study.

Thomas Knoll1, Felix Wezel, Maurice Stephan Michel, Patrick Honeck, Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: A benefit of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) compared with conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has not been demonstrated as yet. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of conventional vs MPCNL and to determine if MPCNL offers an advantage for the patient. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, nonrandomized series of 50 consecutive patients with solitary calculi (lower pole or the renal pelvis) were treated either by conventional PCNL (26F) or MPCNL (18F). Ultrasound or holmium laser were used for lithotripsy. Patients were treated tubeless after uncomplicated MPCNL, with thrombin-matrix tract closure and antegrade Double-J catheter placement. After PCNL, all patients received 22F nephrostomies. Demographic data, stone characteristics, perioperative course, and complication rates were assessed.
RESULTS: Patients characteristics were comparable in both groups, except for stone size, which was 18 +/- 8 mm (MPCNL) and 23 +/- 9 (PCNL; P = 0.042). Operative time was comparable in both groups (48 +/- 17 vs 57 +/- 22 min, not significant [NS]). After MPCNL, 96% were stone free at day 1 vs 92% after PCNL (NS). Significant complications did not occur in both groups. Minor complications were: Fever, 12% (MPCNL) vs 20% (PCNL; NS); bleeding, 4% vs 8%; perforations, 0% vs 4% (all NS). Overall outcome was not influenced by body mass index. Calcium oxalate stones were predominant with 75%. Patients after tubeless MPCNL had less pain (visual analogue score, 3 +/- 3 vs 4 +/- 3; P = 0.048.) and needed slightly less additional pain medication (25 +/- 12 mg/d vs 37 +/- 10 mg/d piritramid; NS). Hospital stay was significantly shorter after MPCNL (3.8 +/- 28 vs 6.9 +/- 3.5 d; P = 0.021.).
CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques were safe and effective for the management of renal calculi. While stone-free rates were comparable in our series, MPCNL showed advantages in terms of shorter hospital stay and postoperative pain. The lower stone burden and the tubeless fashion of MPCNL, however, might have influenced these results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20575685     DOI: 10.1089/end.2010.0111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  42 in total

Review 1.  [Benign prostatic hyperplasia and urolithiasis].

Authors:  T Knoll; R Hofmann; K Höfner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Appropriate kidney stone size for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: When to switch to a percutaneous approach.

Authors:  Ryoji Takazawa; Sachi Kitayama; Toshihiko Tsujii
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2015-02-06

3.  Comparison of super-mini versus mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of upper urinary tract stones in children: a single centre experience.

Authors:  Abulizi Simayi; Peng Lei; Talaiti Tayier; Aihemaiti Aimaier; Zhang Xiao'an; Yalikun Alimu
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 1.827

4.  New ex vivo organ model for percutaneous renal surgery using a laparoendoscopic training box: the sandwich model.

Authors:  Stephan Jutzi; Florian Imkamp; Markus A Kuczyk; Ute Walcher; Udo Nagele; Thomas R W Herrmann
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-08-24       Impact factor: 4.226

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

Authors:  Ali Güler; Akif Erbin; Burak Ucpinar; Metin Savun; Omer Sarilar; Mehmet Fatih Akbulut
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  Is tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy a feasible technique for the treatment of staghorn calculi?

Authors:  Sang Cheol Lee; Chang Hee Kim; Kwang Taek Kim; Tae Beom Kim; Khae Hawn Kim; Han Jung; Sang Jin Yoon; Jin Kyu Oh
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2013-10-15

7.  PCNL in the twenty-first century: role of Microperc, Miniperc, and Ultraminiperc.

Authors:  Arvind P Ganpule; Amit Satish Bhattu; Mahesh Desai
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Nomenclature in PCNL or The Tower Of Babel: a proposal for a uniform terminology.

Authors:  David Schilling; Tanja Hüsch; Markus Bader; Thomas R Herrmann; Udo Nagele
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-02-12       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 9.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: technique.

Authors:  Thomas Knoll; Francisco Daels; Janak Desai; Andras Hoznek; Bodo Knudsen; Emanuele Montanari; Cesare Scoffone; Andreas Skolarikos; Keiichi Tozawa
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-01-25       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2-3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting.

Authors:  Jiahua Pan; Qi Chen; Wei Xue; Yonghui Chen; Lei Xia; Haige Chen; Yiran Huang
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2012-12-23       Impact factor: 3.436

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.