PDF herunterladen
CC BY 4.0 · Surg J (N Y) 2020; 06(01): e19-e23
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1701225
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Mini PCNL Over Standard PCNL: What Makes it Better?

Bikash Bikram Thapa 
1   Department of Surgery, Nepal Army Institute of Health Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal
,
Vikram Niranjan
2   Health Research Institute/Graduate Entry Medical School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

29. Juni 2019

04. November 2019

Publikationsdatum:
12. Februar 2020 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

The incidence of small- and medium-size renal stones is rising. Stone clearance, bleeding, urine leak, and infectious complications are major concerns for urologists. They can choose the best technique from a list of armamentarium available. Minimally invasive approach like percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has significantly influenced renal stone management since 1976. Miniaturization of the instruments innovate more effective and safer alternatives for urolithasis management. The outcome of mini-PCNL is explored and compared with standard PCNL in this review. Original research articles were reviewed using a systematic approach (keyword electronic database search). Duplicates were excluded in each step and 19 original articles out of 156 hits were analyzed. Mini-PCNL has significantly less bleeding complications and hospital stay. There were no significant difference in stone free rate between mini-PCNL and standard PCNL. The stone-free rate and complications rates were less dependent on the technique of puncture, tract dilatation, and energy used to fragment stones. The total operative time became slightly longer in mini-PCNL attributed to the sheath size and stone fragments retrieval. We found that mini-PCNL is as effective as standard PCNL with fewer complications. Stone burden is the key factor responsible for overall stone-free rate. However, the recommendation is limited by quality of study and the sample sizes.

Keywords

nephrolithiasis - percutaneous nephrolithotomy - mini-PCNL

Declaration

All contributing authors declare no conflicts of interest.


 

  • References

  • 1 Arslan B, Akbulut MF, Onuk O. , et al. A comparison of Amplatz dilators and metal dilators for tract dilatation in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Int Urol Nephrol 2017; 49 (04) 581-585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG. Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Rev Urol 2010; 12 (2-3): e86-e96
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K. , et al. Urolithiasis. European Association of Urology. https://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/ . Accessed: August 23, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL. , et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, part I. J Urol 2016; 196 (04) 1153-1160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wright A, Rukin N, Smith D, De la Rosette J, Somani BK. 'Mini, ultra, micro' - nomenclature and cost of these new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques. Ther Adv Urol 2016; 8 (02) 142-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zhu W, Liu Y, Liu L. , et al. Minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 2015; 43 (06) 563-570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jackman SV, Docimo SG, Cadeddu JA, Bishoff JT, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW. The “mini-perc” technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 1998; 16 (06) 371-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Giusti G, Piccinelli A, Taverna G. , et al. Miniperc? No, thank you!. Eur Urol 2007; 51 (03) 810-814 , discussion 815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Li LY, Gao X, Yang M. , et al. Does a smaller tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy contribute to less invasiveness? A prospective comparative study. Urology 2010; 75 (01) 56-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mishra S, Sharma R, Garg C, Kurien A, Sabnis R, Desai M. Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int 2011; 108 (06) 896-899 , discussion 899–900
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bhattu AS, Mishra S, Ganpule A. , et al. Outcomes in a large series of minipercs: analysis of consecutive 318 patients. J Endourol 2015; 29 (03) 283-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kukreja RA. Should mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MiniPNL/Miniperc) be the ideal tract for medium-sized renal calculi (15-30 mm)?. World J Urol 2018; 36 (02) 285-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lange JN, Gutierrez-Aceves J. Comparative outcomes of conventional PCNL and miniaturized PCNL in the treatment of kidney stones: does a miniaturized tract improve quality of care?. Urol Pract 2018; 5 (03) 205-209
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 ElSheemy MS, Elmarakbi AA, Hytham M, Ibrahim H, Khadgi S, Al-Kandari AM. Mini vs standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones: a comparative study. Urolithiasis 2018; 16 (10) 18-1055
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Knoll T, Wezel F, Michel MS, Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G. Do patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? A comparative prospective study. J Endourol 2010; 24 (07) 1075-1079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hu G, Guo Z, Liu H. , et al; *Joint first authors: Guanghui Hu and Zhuifeng Guo. A novel minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy technique: safety and efficacy report. Scand J Urol 2015; 49 (02) 174-180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Zeng G, Zhao Z, Wan S. , et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for simple and complex renal caliceal stones: a comparative analysis of more than 10,000 cases. J Endourol 2013; 27 (10) 1203-1208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cheng F, Yu W, Zhang X, Yang S, Xia Y, Ruan Y. Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones. J Endourol 2010; 24 (10) 1579-1582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Zhu W, Li J, Yuan J. , et al. A prospective and randomised trial comparing fluoroscopic, total ultrasonographic, and combined guidance for renal access in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. BJU Int 2017; 119 (04) 612-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Akbulut F, Kucuktopcu O, Kandemir E. , et al. Comparison of efficacy of laser lithotripter with ultrasonic lithotripter in mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2016; 87 (04) 276-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ganesamoni R, Sabnis RB, Mishra S. , et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing laser lithotripsy with pneumatic lithotripsy in miniperc for renal calculi. J Endourol 2013; 27 (12) 1444-1449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lahme S. Miniaturisation of PCNL. Urolithiasis 2018; 46 (01) 99-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sebaey A, Khalil MM, Soliman T. , et al. Standard versus tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a randomised controlled trial. Arab J Urol 2016; 14 (01) 18-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Zhong W, Zeng G, Wu W, Chen W, Wu K. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy with multiple mini tracts in a single session in treating staghorn calculi. Urol Res 2011; 39 (02) 117-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Güler A, Erbin A, Ucpinar B, Savun M, Sarilar O, Akbulut MF. Comparison of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of large kidney stones: a randomized prospective study. Urolithiasis 2019; 47 (03) 289-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar