The Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with Different Access Sizes for the Single Renal Stone ≤25 mm: A Randomized Prospective Study

Objectives: The aim of this study was to provide a randomized controlled trial comparing the outcomes of different access sizes used in the solo ultrasonic-guided minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL). Methods: From January 2018 to December 2019, a total of 160 cases with single renal stones of <25 mm were randomized to undergo mini-PCNLs with Fr16, Fr18, Fr20, or Fr22 accesses. All accesses were established with the axis of the target calyx as the marker for puncture location and then expanded to the desired size. Hemoglobin reduction, operative time, stone-free rate, complications, etc., were all recorded and assessed. Results: The demographic data were similar, and there were no significantly intergroup differences in stone-free rate, complications, and hospital stay time. The hemoglobin reduction was comparable and was 0.9 ± 0.6, 0.9 ± 0.7, 1.0 ± 0.5, and 1.1 ± 0.7 g/dL for the groups Fr16, Fr18, Fr20, and Fr22, respectively. The operative time was 53.4 ± 14.5, 48.5 ± 15.2, 42.8 ± 13.3, and 43.3 ± 13.1 min for the 4 groups, which decreased significantly from group Fr16 to Fr20, but there was no significant difference between Fr20 and Fr22 groups. Conclusions: The axis of target calyx is a reliable marker for establishment of percutaneous renal access under ultrasonic guidance. The surgical outcomes of different access sizes were comparable, but the operation time was significantly shortened with the increase of size. However, Fr22 was not more efficient than Fr20.

[1]  Xiaobo Huang,et al.  Outcome of Selective Renal Artery Embolization in Managing Severe Bleeding after Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy , 2020, Urologia Internationalis.

[2]  V. Niranjan,et al.  Mini PCNL Over Standard PCNL: What Makes it Better? , 2020, The Surgery Journal.

[3]  T. Knoll,et al.  Future of kidney stone management: surgical intervention miniaturization of PCNL: where is the limit? , 2019, Current opinion in urology.

[4]  A. Srivastava,et al.  Efficacy and safety of supracostal access for mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients. , 2019, Urology.

[5]  F. Cheng,et al.  The Anatomic Structure of a Fused Renal Pyramid and Its Clinical Significance in the Establishment of Percutaneous Renal Access. , 2019, Urology.

[6]  Juan Bao,et al.  The Analysis of Risk Factors for Hemorrhage Associated with Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy , 2019, BioMed research international.

[7]  S. Lahme Miniaturisation of PCNL , 2018, Urolithiasis.

[8]  Y. Akın,et al.  Comparison of Mini-percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in Preschool-aged Children. , 2017, Urology.

[9]  G. Zeng,et al.  Super-mini PCNL (SMP): Material, indications, technique, advantages and results. , 2017, Archivos españoles de urología.

[10]  F. Cheng,et al.  The learning curve for access creation in solo ultrasonography-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy and the associated skills , 2017, International Urology and Nephrology.

[11]  T. Knoll,et al.  Minimally invasive versus conventional large-bore percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of large-sized renal calculi: Surgeon’s preference? , 2016, Scandinavian journal of urology.

[12]  W. Jin,et al.  Middle calyx access is better for single renal pelvic stone in ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy , 2016, Urolithiasis.

[13]  S. Datta,et al.  Prospective Outcomes of Ultra Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Consecutive Cohort Study. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[14]  S. Avcı,et al.  Factors Influencing Complications of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Single-Center Study. , 2015, Urology journal.

[15]  Y. Yılmaz,et al.  Risk factors for hemorrhage requiring embolization after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. , 2015, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.

[16]  Yiping Song,et al.  The role of middle calyx puncture in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: relative factors and choice considerations. , 2015, Minerva urologica e nefrologica = The Italian journal of urology and nephrology.

[17]  O. Aydogdu,et al.  Does the use of smaller Amplatz sheath size reduce complication rates in percutaneous nephrolithotomy? , 2014, Urology journal.

[18]  Y. Z. Atesçi,et al.  The Use of the Amplatz Sheath in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Does Amplatz Sheath Size Matter? , 2013, Current Urology.

[19]  A. Tepeler,et al.  Factors affecting bleeding during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: single surgeon experience. , 2011, Journal of endourology.

[20]  A. Unsal,et al.  Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Hypertensive Patients with Different Sizes of Instruments , 2011, Acta chirurgica Belgica.

[21]  A. Unsal,et al.  Safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants, preschool age, and older children with different sizes of instruments. , 2010, Urology.

[22]  F. Sampaio,et al.  Renal anatomy. Endourologic considerations. , 2000, The Urologic clinics of North America.