To compare the outcome of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Mini-PNL) versus standard-PNL for renal stones. Retrospective study was performed between March 2010 and May 2013 for patients treated by Mini-PNL or standard-PNL through 18 and 30 Fr tracts, respectively, using pneumatic lithotripsy. Semirigid ureteroscope (8.5/11.5 Fr) was used for Mini-PNL and 24 Fr nephroscope for standard-PNL. Both groups were compared in stone free rate(SFR), complications and operative time using Student-t, Mann-Whitney, Chi square or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate in addition to logistic regression analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Mini-PNL (378) and standard-PNL (151) were nearly comparable in patients and stones criteria including stone burden (3.77 ± 2.21 vs 3.77 ± 2.43 cm; respectively). There was no significant difference in number of tracts or supracostal puncture. Mini-PNL had longer operative time (68.6 ± 29.09 vs 60.49 ± 11.38 min; p = 0.434), significantly shorter hospital stay (2.43 ± 1.46 vs 4.29 ± 1.28 days) and significantly higher rate of tubeless PNL (75.1 vs 4.6%). Complications were significantly higher in standard-PNL (7.9 vs 20.5%; p < 0.001). SFR was significantly lower in Mini-PNL (89.9 vs 96%; p = 0.022). This significant difference was found with multiple stones and large stone burden (> 2 cm), but the SFR was comparable between both groups with single stone or stone burden ≤ 2 cm. Logistic regression analysis confirmed significantly higher complications and SFR with standard-PNL but with significantly shorter operative time. Mini-PNL has significantly lower SFR when compared to standard-PNL (but clinically comparable) with markedly reduced complications and hospital stay. Most of cases can be performed tubeless. The significant difference in SFR was found with multiple stones or large stone burden (> 2 cm), but not with single stones or stone burden ≤ 2 cm.

Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety of ultraslow full‐power versus slow rate, power‐ramping shock wave lithotripsy in the management of stones with a high attenuation value. Methods This was a randomized comparative study enrolling patients with single high attenuation value (≥1000 Hounsfield unit) stones (≤3 cm) between September 2015 and May 2018. Patients with skin‐to‐stone distance >11 cm or body mass index >30 kg/m2 were excluded. Electrohydraulic shock wave lithotripsy was carried out at rate of 30 shock waves/min for group A versus 60 shock waves/min for group B. In group A, power ramping was from 6 to 18 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min, followed by ramping 18–22 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min. This full power (22 kV) was maintained until the end of the session. In group B, power ramping was carried out with an increase of 4 kV each 500 shock waves, then maintained on 22 kV in the last 1000–1500 shock waves. Follow up was carried out up to 3 months after the last session. Perioperative data were compared, including the stone free rate (as a primary outcome) and complications (secondary outcome). Predicting factors for success were analyzed using logistic regression. Results A total of 100 patients in group A and 96 patients in group B were included. The stone‐free rate was significantly higher in group A (76% vs 38.5%; P < 0.001). Both groups were comparable in complication rates (20% vs 19.8%; P = 0.971). The stone‐free rate remained significantly higher in group A in logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 24.011, 95% confidence interval 8.29–69.54; P < 0.001). Conclusions Ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy for high attenuation value stones is associated with an improved stone‐free rate without affecting safety. Further validation studies are required using other shock wave lithotripsy machines.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy protocol in the management of high attenuation value upper ureteric stones compared with slow‐rate, power‐ramping shock wave lithotripsy.MethodsThis was a randomized trial enrolling patients with a single high attenuation value (≥1000 HU) upper ureteric stones between January 2019 and July 2019. Ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy (54 patients) was applied at a rate of 30 shock waves/min with power ramping from 6 to 18 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min, followed by ramping 18–22 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min. Then, full power (22 kV) was maintained until the end of the session. Slow‐rate, power‐ramping shock wave lithotripsy (47 patients) was applied at a rate of 60 shock waves/min with power ramping from 6 to 10 kV during the first 500 shock waves, then from 11 to 22 kV during the next 1000 shock waves, then maintained on 22 kV in the last 1500 shock waves. Up to three sessions were carried out with a follow up 3 months after the last session. The primary outcome was the stone‐free rate. Perioperative data of the two protocols were compared.ResultsThere was no significant difference in preoperative data. The stone‐free rate was significantly higher in ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy after single (92.6% vs 23.4%) and multiple (96.3% vs 63.8%) sessions. Most complications were mild, with no significant difference between both groups (9.3% vs 12.8%; P = 0.573). Logistic regression analysis identified ultraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy protocol as the only significant independent factor for the stone‐free rate (odds ratio 12.589, P = 0.025).ConclusionUltraslow full‐power shock wave lithotripsy for high attenuation value upper ureteric stones is associated with a significantly higher stone‐free rate, and with mild complications that are comparable to those of standard shock wave lithotripsy.

No abstract