Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy compared with retrograde intrarenal surgery: a meta-analysis

“…Patients will be required to pay for their care outright or in part in several countries. Of course, prices associated with disposables also play a significant role [16,17].…”

Section: обмен опытомmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the safety and the reliability of day case mini-PCNL in treatment of renal stones 1 to 2 cm

Mostafa,

El-zayat,

Omer

et al. 2024

Ambulatornaya khirurgiya

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. The capacity to execute mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) as a day case procedure in the treatment on renal stones measuring between one and two centimetres is being assessed in this study. Mini-PCNL has been employed more and more in the treatment on renal stones with favourable results in terms on stone clearance and low morbidities.Aim. To find a reliable replacement for E.S.W.L. and R.I.R.S in treating small renal stones that is safe, efficient, and reliable with the shortest post-operative stay period.Materials and methods. Seventy patients underwent surgery for kidney stones that ranged in size from 1 to 2 cm and had densities greater than 1000 H.U. They were split into two groups: group B received mini-PCNL and group A received regular PCNL. Both procedures were carried out while the patients was in the prone position. In group A, we fragmented the material with an electrohydraulic lithotripter and removed the resulting fragments using forceps. In contrast, group B employed a 30 w Quanta Holmium laser in dusting mode (0.5 j and 15 Hz) with 550 um laser fibre and relied on our exit plan for the double-J stent implantation, which avoided the necessity for a nephrostomy tube.Results. Operation duration was significantly longer in mini-PCNL group (p < 0.001). Intraoperative extravasation and its severity were non-significantly less frequent in mini-PCNL group (p > 0.05). All patients operated with mini-PCNL underwent double j stent, while the other group included only two patients who necessitated double J insertion insertion, and the remaining 33 patients depended on the insertion on a nephrostomy tube together with a ureteric catheter.Conclusion: Mini-PCNL is a dependable day case method that is safe for treating tiny kidney stones. Larger sample size studies could be required to confirm mini-PCNL as a day case technique.

show abstract

“…Renal stones represent the most prevalent disorder in urology, with 10 percent of humans reporting complaints [1]. They exhibit a high recurrence rate of approximately 70%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: outcome and complications

Refaat¹,

Hassan²,

Zaza³

2023

Afr J Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Renal stones are a prevalent urological disorder with various treatment options, including minimally invasive techniques such as Standard-PCNL (S-PCNL) and Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (M-PCNL). This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of M-PCNL and S-PCNL for managing renal calculi. Methods This randomized study enrolled 60 patients with renal stones, comparing the efficacy and safety of M-PCNL (Group A) and S-PCNL (Group B) procedures. Preoperative assessments, surgical procedures, and postoperative care were conducted, and outcomes such as operating time, stone clearance, analgesic requirement, and hospital stay were evaluated. Data analysis was performed using SPSS software, with comparisons between groups conducted using the Chi-square test and Student t test. Results M-PCNL had a longer operation time (133.73 ± 29.18 min) than S-PCNL (48.6 ± 17.88 min, p = 0.009) but a lower mean drop in hemoglobin levels (0.14 ± 0.01 g/dL vs. 0.82 ± 0.05 g/dL, p = 0.032). The success rates (stone-free rate) were significantly different, with 100% in the M-PCNL group and 86.7% in the S-PCNL group (p = 0.040). Complications were generally fewer in the M-PCNL group, including postoperative fever in 2 cases (M-PCNL) vs. 8 cases (S-PCNL) and mild collection in 4 cases (M-PCNL) vs. 26 cases (S-PCNL). Conclusions M-PCNL is an effective and safer method for managing renal calculi smaller than 3 cm, offering a higher stone-free rate, lower postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stays compared to S-PCNL. Despite longer operation times due to stone fragmentation, M-PCNL has fewer complications, including lower bleeding rates, hemoglobin drop, and leakage, and can be performed using an ureteroscope when a miniperc scope is unavailable.

show abstract

Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy compared with retrograde intrarenal surgery: a meta-analysis

Cited by 3 publications

References 30 publications

Evaluation of mini-PCNL and RIRS for renal stones 1–2 cm in an economically challenged setting: A prospective cohort study

Evaluation of mini-PCNL and RIRS for renal stones 1–2 cm in an economically challenged setting: A prospective cohort study

Evaluation of the safety and the reliability of day case mini-PCNL in treatment of renal stones 1 to 2 cm

Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: outcome and complications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About