Literature DB >> 29858913

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

Ali Güler1, Akif Erbin2, Burak Ucpinar1, Metin Savun1, Omer Sarilar1, Mehmet Fatih Akbulut1.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Big kidney stone; Miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29858913     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-018-1061-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urolithiasis        ISSN: 2194-7228            Impact factor:   3.436


  16 in total

1.  Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique.

Authors:  I Fernström; B Johansson
Journal:  Scand J Urol Nephrol       Date:  1976

2.  Operating times and bleeding complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparison of tract dilation methods in 5,537 patients in the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study.

Authors:  Akito Yamaguchi; Andreas Skolarikos; Niels-Peter Noor Buchholz; Gonzalo Bueno Chomón; Michael Grasso; Pietro Saba; Stephen Nakada; Jean de la Rosette
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-05-13       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  Single-step percutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc): the initial clinical report.

Authors:  Mahesh R Desai; Rajan Sharma; Shashikant Mishra; Ravindra B Sabnis; Christian Stief; Markus Bader
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-05-14       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Miniperc? No, thank you!

Authors:  Guido Giusti; Alessandro Piccinelli; Gianluigi Taverna; Alessio Benetti; Luisa Pasini; Matteo Corinti; Alessandro Teppa; Silvia Zandegiacomo de Zorzi; Pierpaolo Graziotti
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-08-11       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study.

Authors:  Rajesh Kukreja; Mihir Desai; Snehal Patel; Sharad Bapat; Mahesh Desai
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.942

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

Authors:  Thomas Knoll; Felix Wezel; Maurice Stephan Michel; Patrick Honeck; Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones.

Authors:  Fan Cheng; Weimin Yu; Xiaobin Zhang; Sixing Yang; Yue Xia; Yuan Ruan
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.942

8.  A prospective randomized comparison of type of nephrostomy drainage following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: large bore versus small bore versus tubeless.

Authors:  Mahesh R Desai; Rajesh A Kukreja; Mihir M Desai; Sumeet S Mhaskar; Kishore A Wani; Snehal H Patel; Sharad D Bapat
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard.

Authors:  Ahmet Tefekli; Mert Ali Karadag; Kadir Tepeler; Erhan Sari; Yalcin Berberoglu; Murat Baykal; Omer Sarilar; Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2007-07-24       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): one more armamentarium.

Authors:  Janak Desai; Ronak Solanki
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-07-11       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  23 in total

Review 1.  Precision Stone Surgery: Current Status of Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  John M DiBianco; Khurshid R Ghani
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2021-02-12       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): Techniques and outcomes.

Authors:  Panagiotis Kallidonis; Arman Tsaturyan; Marco Lattarulo; Evangelos Liatsikos
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-06-05

3.  Renal puncture access via a nonpapillary track in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an in vitro porcine kidney experience.

Authors:  Bingbing Hou; Mingquan Wang; Ziyan Song; Qiushi He; Zongyao Hao
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  The use of ureteral access sheath during mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy with high-power holmium YAG laser.

Authors:  Arman Tsaturyan; Marco Lattarulo; Constantinos Adamou; Konstantinos Pagonis; Angelis Peteinaris; Despoina Liourdi; Theofanis Vrettos; Evangelos Liatsikos; Panagiotis Kallidonis
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Comparison of two techniques for the management of 2-3 cm lower pole renal calculi in obese patients.

Authors:  Xiao Liu; Ding Xia; Ejun Peng; Yonghua Tong; Hailang Liu; Xinguang Wang; Yu He; Zhiqiang Chen; Kun Tang
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Gender-related differences in the performance of sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) to predict septic shock after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Rong Shen; Wei Zhang; Shaoxiong Ming; Ling Li; Yonghan Peng; Xiaofeng Gao
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2020-05-05       Impact factor: 3.436

7.  Technical aspects to maximize the hyperaccuracy three-dimensional (HA3D) computed tomography reconstruction for kidney stones surgery: a pilot study.

Authors:  Arman Tsaturyan; Andrea Bellin; Simona Barbuto; Peter Zampakis; Epameinondas Ntzanis; Marco Lattarulo; Christina Kalogeropoulou; Evangelos Liatsikos; Panagiotis Kallidonis
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2021-04-03       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  Comparison of standard- and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones.

Authors:  Sanjay Khadgi; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Mohamed El-Shazly; Abdullatif Al-Terki
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2021-01-21

9.  Consultation on kidney stones, Copenhagen 2019: lithotripsy in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Tomas Andri Axelsson; Cecilia Cracco; Mahesh Desai; Mudhar Nazar Hasan; Thomas Knoll; Emanuele Montanari; Daniel Pérez-Fentes; Michael Straub; Kay Thomas; James C Williams; Marianne Brehmer; Palle J S Osther
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-07-29       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Reporting and grading of complications after mid-urethral sling surgeries: Could the "Clavien-Dindo Classification" be adopted?

Authors:  Ahmed S El-Hefnawy; Bassem S Wadie
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2021-05-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.