Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy. How good it is - a single centre experience

Syed Javid F. Qadri; Mufti Mahmood Ahmed; Zafar S. Khanday; Asim Leharwaal

doi:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20205668

Authors

Syed Javid F. Qadri Department of Surgery, Government Medical College Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Mufti Mahmood Ahmed Department of Surgery, Government Medical College Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Zafar S. Khanday Department of Surgery, Government Medical College Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Asim Leharwaal Department of Surgery, Government Medical College Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20205668

Keywords:

Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Renal stone, Pneumatic lithotripsy

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is one of the 1st line treatment options for managing renal stones. Miniaturization of this technique has been developed to decrease the morbidity of this technique without compromising the results. Mini PCNL (mPCNL) involves the use of small calibre sheath and nephroscope to tackle renal stones of small to moderate size. The aim of this study is to present the efficacy and technical advantages of mPCNL in managing renal stones.

Methods: This was a retrospective single centre study of mPCNL in managing renal stones.

Results: From July 2015 to July 2020 192 mPCNL procedures were done at our centre in 175 patients. The median number of stones was 1(1-3) and the average size of calculus was 18.5 mm (6-35) mm. Mean operative time in our study was 46 (35-92) minutes. Fever developed in 15 (7.8%) patients which was managed by parenteral antibiotics, none of our patients required ICU admission. Haemothorax developed in 2 (1%) patients and both of them were managed by tube thoracostomy. We achieved complete clearance in 183 (95.3%) cases. In 9 (4.7%) patients residual calculi were manged by flexible ureteroscopy at 1 month.

Conclusions: mPCNL is an effective procedure for management of patients with renal stones with the advantages of less blood loss, short hospital stay and excellent stone clearance rate.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM, Curhan GC. Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Kidney Int. 2003;63:1817–23.

Prezioso D, Di Martino M, Galasso R, Iapicca G. Laboratory assessment. Urol Int. 2007;79(Suppl 1):20–5.

Arslan B, Akbulut MF, Onuk O, Küçüktopçu O, Çilesiz NC, Ozkan A. A comparison of Amplatz dilators and metal dilators for tract dilatation in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017;49(4):581-5.

Fernstro¨m I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976;10:257e9.

Xue W, Pacik D, Boellaard W, Breda A, Botoca M, Rassweiler J, et al. Management of single large nonstaghorn renal stones in the CROES PCNL global study. J Urol. 2012;187:1293e7.

Zhu W, Liu Y, Liu L, Lei M, Yuan J, Wan SP, et al. Minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. 2015;43:563e70.

Webb DRTH. Intraluminal surgery of the uper tract. Dial Paed Urol 1995;18:2–4.

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;16:3714

Hennessey DB, Kinnear NK, Troy A, Angus D, Bolton DM, Webb DR. Mini PCNL for renal calculi: does size matter?BJU Int. 2017;119:39-46.

Carter SSC, Cox R, Wickham JEA. Complications associated with ureteroscopy. Br J Urol. 1986;58(6):625–8.

Liu L, Zheng S, Xu Y, Wei Q. Systematic review and meta-analysis of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for patients in the supine versus prone position. J Endourol. 2010;24:1941–6

Wu P, Wang L, Wang K. Supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney calculi: a meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2011;43(1):67-77.

Nagele U, Nicklas A. Vacuum cleaner effect, purging effect, active and passive wash out: a new terminology in hydrodynamic stone retrival is arising–Does it affect our endourologic routine? World J Urol. 2016;34:143–4.

Mager R, Balzereit C, Gust K, Hüsch T, Herrmann T, Nagele U, et al. The hydrodynamic basis of the vacuum cleaner effect in continuous-flow PCNL instruments: an empiric approach and mathematical model. World J Urol. 2016;34(5):717-24.

Bader MJ, Pongratz T, Khoder W, Stief CG, Herrmann T, Nagele U, et al. Impact of pulse duration on Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy: fragmentation and dusting performance. World J Urol. 2015;33(4):471-7.