A PROSPECTIVE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STANDARD PCNL VERSUS MINI PCNL FOR THE TREATMENT OF RENAL STONE OF SIZE 10-30 MM.

Rakesh  Kumar; Rohit  Upadhyay; Kumar  Dheeraj; Gaurav  Babelay

doi:10.51168/sjhrafrica.v5i12.1458

Authors

Rakesh Kumar Senior Resident, Department of Urology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
Rohit Upadhyay Professor, Department of Urology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
Kumar Dheeraj Senior Resident, Department of Urology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
Gaurav Babelay Senior Resident, Department of Urology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51168/sjhrafrica.v5i12.1458

Keywords:

Renal Stones, Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Ureteroscopy, Mini PCNL, Standard PCNL

Abstract

Background

About 2-3 percent of the general population suffers from urolithiasis. When percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) was introduced, open surgery was no longer the primary surgical treatment for renal stone disorders. There are currently few studies comparing Mini PCNL to regular PCNL. Furthermore, their relative safety and effectiveness are still up for discussion.

Objectives

The goal of the study was to compare the effectiveness of Mini PCNL with regular PCNL in treating kidney stones that were between 10 and 30 mm in size.

Materials and methods

It was a prospective-interventional study. The study took place at the Department of Urology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (IGIMS), Patna, Bihar, India. The study was conducted for one year, i.e., from November 2021 to December 2022.

Results

With a p-value of 0.0001, the average decline of hemoglobin in mini PCNL was 0.79 ± 0.37, and in Standard PCNL, it was 1.34 ± 0.84. Both were deemed significant. The average number of days spent in the hospital after surgery was 4.38 ± 1.079 in Mini PCNL and 5.30 ± 1.47 in Standard PCNL, with a p-value of 0.18. The characteristics that were determined after the treatment were stone-free status, the need for ICU, the need for blood transfusion (BT), and fever post-operatively.

Conclusion

The study concluded that mini PCNL can be considered a safe, acceptable, and effective modality and alternative to Standard PCNL for the treatment of renal calculi of sizes 10-30 mm, resulting in fewer post-op complications, lesser post-op hospital stays, lesser bleeding, and lesser chances of post-op fever and post-op ICU admission.

Recommendations

A stone-free status should be disclosed to the patient only after post-operative imaging, not based solely on intraoperative results.

References

Drach GW. Urinary lithiasis, etiology, diagnosis, and medical management. Campbell's urology. 1990.

Uribarri J, Oh MS, Carroll HJ. The first kidney stone. Annals of internal medicine. 1989 Dec 15;111(12):1006-9. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-111-12-1006

Helal M, Black T, Lockhart J, Figueroa TE. The Hickman peel-away sheath: an alternative for pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Journal of endourology. 1997 Jun;11(3):171-2. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1997.11.171

Wright A, Rukin N, Smith D, De la Rosette J, Somani BK. 'Mini, ultra, micro-nomenclature and cost of these new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques. Therapeutic advances in urology. 2016 Apr;8(2):142-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287215617674

Zhu W, Liu Y, Liu L, Lei M, Yuan J, Wan SP, Zeng G. Minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. 2015 Nov;43:563-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0808-y

Yamaguchi A, Skolarikos A, Buchholz NP, Chomon GB, Grasso M, Saba P, Nakada S, de la Rosette, on behalf of the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Study Group J. Operating times and bleeding complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparison of tract dilation methods in 5537 patients in the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study. Journal of endourology. 2011 Jun 1;25(6):933-9. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0606

Abdel-Hafez MF, Wendt-Nordahl G, Kruck S, Mager R, Stenzl A, Knoll T, Schilling D. Minimally invasive versus conventional large-bore percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of large-sized renal calculi: surgeon's preference?. Scandinavian Journal of Urology. 2016 May 3;50(3):212-5. https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2016.1155078

ElSheemy MS, Elmarakbi AA, Hytham M, Ibrahim H, Khadgi S, Al-Kandari AM. Mini vs. standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones: a comparative study. Urolithiasis. 2019 Apr 1;47:207-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1055-9

Zhong W, Zeng G, Wu K, Li X, Chen W, Yang H (2008) Does a smaller tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy contribute to high renal pelvic pressure and postoperative fever? J Endourol 22(9):2147-2151. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0001. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0001

Stenberg A, Bohman SO, Morsing P, Müller-Suur C, Olsen L, Persson AE (1988) Back-leak of pelvic urine to the bloodstream. Acta Physiol Scand Oct 134(2):223-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1716.1988.tb08483.x

Troxel SA, Low RK (2002) Renal intrapelvic pressure during percutaneous nephrolithotomy and its correlation with the development of postoperative fever. J Urol Oct 168:1348-135 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64446-1