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.
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.
Keywords:
Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Stone disease; Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Urolithiasis