Study of the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of large and complex renal stone

Rushabhkumar C. Somani, Chirag K. Sangada


Background: Nephrolithiasis is highly prevalent across all demographic groups in the india and beyond, and its incidence rates are rising. In addition to the morbidity of the acute event, stone disease often becomes a lifelong problem that requires preventative therapy to diminish ongoing morbidity. Objective of this study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the management of large and complex renal stone.

Methods: This retrospective study includes 75 renal calculi patients with 100 renal units with large and complicated stone >20 mm. Stones were classified into simple (isolated renal pelvis or isolated calyceal stones) or complex (partial or complete stag horn stones, renal pelvis stones with accompanying calyceal stones). Then various parameter like decrease haemoglobin, surgical complication, creatinine level, duration of surgery etc were compared between simple and complex stones patients by calculation p value using online student t test calculator. P value less than 0.01 considered as a difference of significance.

Results: The mean stone size was 35.5±20.37 mm and mean operative duration was 60±35.3 min. In all, cases 60 (80%) were stone-free after the first procedure and another 10 needed an auxiliary procedure (5 second-look PCNL, 3 extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy-ESWL, 2 ureterorenoscopy, and) to become stone-free, resulting in a 93.33% stone-free rate. Complications occurred in 9 procedures (12%).

Conclusions: From this study, it would be concluded that Minimally invasive PCNL provided significantly higher stone-free rate and efficiency quotient for management of urinary calculi. Overall complications are usually observed in patients having intraoperative hypotension and increased intra operative time.


Complex ad large renal stone, Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Safety and efficacy

Full Text:



Trinchieri A, Ostini F, Nespoli R, Rovera F, Montanari E, Zanetti G. A prospective study of recurrence rate and risk factors for recurrence after a first renal stone. J Urol. 1999;162(1):27-30.

Li LY, Gao X, Yang M, Li JF, Zhang HB, Xu WF, et al. Does a smaller tract in percutaneous contribute to less invasiveness? A prospective comparative study. Urology. 2010;75(1):56-61.

Ferakis N, Stavropoulos M. Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal and upper ureteral stones: Lessons learned from a review of the literature. Urol Anna. 2015;7(2):141.

Schilling D, Gakis G, Walcher U, Stenzl A, Nagele U. The learning curve in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy: a 1 year retrospective evaluation of a novice and an expert. World J Urol. 2011;29:749-53.

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(6):371-4.

Hu H, Lu Y, He D. Comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of intermediate proximal ureteral and renal stones in the elderly. Urolithiasis, 2016;44(5);427-34.

Ozgor F, Tepeler A, Elbir F. Comparison of miniaturized percutaneous and flexible ureterorenoscopy for the management of 10-20 mm renal stones in obese patients, World J Urol. 2016;34(8);1169-73.

Tefekli A, Karadag AM, Tepeler K. Classification of percutaneous complications using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol. 2008;53:184-90.

Schilling D, Winter B, Merseburger AS, Anastasiadis AG, Walcher U, Stenzl A, et al. Background and research question. Urologist. 2008;47:601-7.

Goel R, Aron M, Kesarwani PK, Dogra PN, Hemal AK, Gupta NP. Percutaneous antegrade removal of impacted upper-ureteral calculi: still the treatment of choice in developing countries. J Endourol. 2005;19(1):54-7.

Desai M, De Lisa A, Turna B. The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous global study: staghorn versus nonstaghorn stones. J Endourol. 2011;25:1263-8.

Jackman SV, Docimo SG, Cadeddu JA, Bishoff JT, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW. The mini-perc technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous. World J Urol. 1998;16:371-4.

Autorino R, Quattrone C, Giugliano F, Balsamo R, D'Armiento M. Choosing the nephrostomy size after percutaneous. World J Urol. 2011;29:707-11.

Knoll T, Wezel F, Michel MS, Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G. Do patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous ? A comparative prospective study. J Endourol. 2010;24:1075-9.

De la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M. The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Global Study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol. 2011;25:1025-8.

Wynberg JB. Flexible ureteroscopy-directed retrograde nephrostomy for percutaneous: description of a technique. 2012;26(10):1268-74.

Cheng F, Yu W, Zhang X, Yang S, Xia Y, Ruan Y. Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous for renal stones. J Endourol. 2010;24:1579-82.

Salem HK. A prospective randomized study comparing shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureteroscopy for the management of proximal ureteral calculi. Urology. 2009;74(6):1216-21.