Comparison of Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (Mini PCNL) and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) for the Minimal Invasive Management of Lower Caliceal Stones
23 February 2021
Purpose: To evaluate the stone-free rates, quality of life, complications, use of fluoroscopy, analgesic requirements, a hospital stay following the management of lower calyceal with two different techniques (Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery) in a prospective manner.
Material and Methods: 50 patients with a diagnosis lower pole 1-2 cm stone were included into the study and were randomized into two groups.(Mini PCNL n: 25) ( RIRS n: 25). Safety and efficacy of both methods along with some other certain related factors were comparatively evaluated in both groups.
Results: There was no significant difference between preoperative stone size, stone to skin distance, hemogram and creatinine values, need for analgesic drug, patients' replies to visual analog scale (VAS). The duration of both the hospital stay and the exposure to fluoroscopy, hematocrit decrease due to hemorrhage, complication rates were significantly higher in cases undergoing mini PCNL when compared to RIRS. Additionally, any significant difference was not observed with respect to the stone-free rates. Despite an increase in quality of life following the both type operations was noted; there was no significant difference in the quality of life between the patients in both groups.
Conclusion: Our findings demonstrated that both surgical techniques are the feasible alternatives in the minimal invasive treatment of lower pole stones. Although there was no meaningful difference in stone-free rates between two groups; complications, use of fluoroscopy, bleeding and duration of hospital stay were noted to be significantly higher in cases treated with mini PCNL.
- Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy(Mini PCNL), Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery(RIRS), visual analog scale (VAS), quality of life, fluoroscopy, hospital stay.
How to Cite
2. Pearle MS and Lotan Y. Urinary lithiasis: etiology, epidemiology, and pathogenesis. Campbell-Walsh Urology 2007; 2: 1363-1392.
3. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K et al. EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. European Urology 2016; 69(3): 475-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041
4. Kijvikai K and De La Rosette J. Assessment of stone composition in the management of urinary stones. Nature Reviews Urology 2011; 8(2): 81-85. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2010.209
5. Jackman SV, Hedican SP, Peters AC, Docimo SG. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants and preschool age children: Experience with a new technique. Urology 1998. 52 (4): 697-701. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00315-x
6. Grasso M and M. Ficazzola. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. The Journal of Urology 1999; 162 (6): 1904-1908. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)68065-2
7. Wewers ME and Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Research in nursing & health 1990; 13(4): 227-236. doi: 10.1002/nur.4770130405
8. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol- a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16 (3). 199-208. doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9
9. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Annals of surgery 2004; 240 (2): 205-213. 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
10. Rosette JDL, Assimos D, Desai M et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. Journal of Endourology 2011; 25 (1): 11-17. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0424
11. Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV et al. Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. The Journal of Urology 2001; 166 (6): 2072-2080. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)65508-5
12. Johnson GB, Portela D, Grasso M. Advanced ureteroscopy: Wireless and sheathless. Journal of Endourology 2006; 20 (8): 552-555. doi: 10.1089/end.2006.20.552
13. Papatsoris A and Sarica K. Flexible ureterorenoscopic management of upper tract pathologies. Urological Research 2012; 40 (6): 639-646. doi: 10.1007/s00240-012-0508-9
14. Preminger GM. Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urological Research 2006; 34 (2): 108-111. doi: 10.1007/s00240-005-0020-6
15. Lingeman J, Siegel IY, Steele B, Nyhuis AW, Woods JR. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. The Journal of Urology 1994; 151 (3): 663-667. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35042-5
16. Resorlu B, Kara C, Senocak C, Cicekbilek I, Unsal A. Effect of previous open renal surgery and failed extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy on the performance and outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Journal of Endourology 2010; 24 (1): 13-16. doi: 10.1089/end.2009.0291
17. Nagele U, Schilling D, Sievert KD, Stenzl A, Kuczyk M. Management of lower-pole stones of 0.8 to 1.5 cm maximal diameter by the minimally invasive percutaneous approach. Journal of Endourology 2008; 22 (9): 1851- 1854. doi: 10.1089/end.2008.9791
18. 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 International 2011; 108 (6): 896-900. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09936.x
19. Elsheemy SM, Elmarakbi AA, Hytham M, Ibrahim H, Khadgi S, Al-Kandari MA. Mini vs standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones: a comparative study. Urolithiasis 2019; 47(2): 207-214. doi: 10.1007/s00240-018-1055-9
20. Grasso M and Ficazzola M. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. The Journal of Urology 1999; 162 (6): 1904-1908. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)68065-2
21. Galvin DJ and Pearle MS. The contemporary management of renal and ureteric calculi. BJU International, 2006; 98 (6): 1283-1288. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06514.x
22. Mariani AJ. Combined electrohydraulic and holmium: YAG laser ureteroscopic nephrolithotripsy of large (greater than 4 cm) renal calculi. The Journal of Urology, 2007; 177 (1): 168-173. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.066
23. Kourambas J, Delvecchio FC, Munver R, Preminger GM. Nitinol stone retrieval- assisted ureteroscopic management of lower pole renal calculi. Urology 2000; 56 (6): 935-939. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00821-9
24. Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B,Yildiz Y, Can EC, Unsal A. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. Journal of Endourology 2011; 25 (7): 1131-1135. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0737
25. Pan J, Chen Q, Xue W et al. RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2-3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting. Urolithiasis 2013; 41 (1) :73-78. doi: 10.1007/s00240-012-0533-8
26. Lee WJ, Park J, Lee BS, Son H, Cho YS, Hyeon J. Mini-percutaneous Nephrolithotomy vs Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Renal Stones Larger Than 10 mm: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Urology 2015; 86 (5): 873-877. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.08.011
27. Kirac M, Bozkurt ÖF, Tunc L, Guneri C, Unsal A, Biri H. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of smaller than 15 mm. Urolithiasis 2013; 41 (3): 241-246. doi: 10.1007/s00240-013-0552-0
28. Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D et al. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Clinical Effectiveness of Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Lower-pole Renal Stones. European Urology 2015; 67 (4): 612-616. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.054
- Abstract Viewed: 0 times
- Just Accepted/6443 Downloaded: 0 times