Mini-PCNL, micro-PCNL or RIRS: comparative efficacy and safety in renal stones up to 2 cm

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅或者付费存取

详细

Introduction. One of the main trends in the evolution of endoscopic treatment of urolithiasis is the miniaturization of instruments. This is obvious in the development of minimally invasive percutaneous nephro-lithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). However, there are few studies comparing the efficiency and safety of these methods.

Aim. To evaluate and compare the efficiency and safety of mini-PCNL, micro-PCNL and RIRS in the treatment of kidney stones up to 2 cm in size.

Materials and methods. Between October 2020 and December 2022, a total 72 patients underwent minimally invasive endoscopic procedures in two centers, including RIRS (n=30), mini-PCNL (n=26) and micro-PCNL (n=16) using thulium fiber laser FiberLase U2. The efficiency of procedure (stone free rate [SFR]) was assessed using non-contrast-enhanced CT. SFR was considered as the absence of residual fragments > 4 mm. Complications (safety) were evaluated based on the Clavien-Dindo classification.

Results. The mean age of all patients was 47.7 (22–84) years. There were no significant differences between three groups in stone characteristics according to CT (maximum diameter, density, volume and number of stones, the presence of pelvicalyceal dilation). SFR was significantly different between the groups (p=0.034). The overall SFR was 81.9% (n=59). After RIRS, mini-PCNL, and micro-PCNL the SFR was 93.3%, 80.8%, and 62.5%, respectively. A significant difference was found between the RIRS and micro-PNL groups, with 2 out of 30 and 6 out of 16 patients requiring repeat procedure, respectively (p=0.026). The overall rate of complication of grades I-II, IIIa and IIIb according to Clavien-Dindo was 6.9%, 9.7% and 6.9%, respectively. A significant difference was found between the RIRS and micro-PCNL (p=0.021) for grade I-II complications. A rate of grade III complications was not differed between the groups. The operation time was higher for mini-PNL (79.8 (30–145) min), and it was shorter for RIRS (55.7 (30–155) min). The length of stay was lower in RIRS group (4.5 (1–12) days).

Conclusion. The highest SFR was achieved in the RIRS group. In terms of the number of complications of I-II grades according to Clavien-Dindo, the duration of the procedure and the length of stay, RIRS also showed the advantage. There were no significant differences in efficiency and safety between the micro-PNL and mini-PNL. There are not enough studies comparing minimally invasive methods for treating kidney stones. It is necessary to continue research in this area in order to develop an optimal algorithm for choosing the method of endoscopic treatment.

全文:

受限制的访问

作者简介

N. Sorokin

Medical Scientific and Educational Center of Moscow State University by Lomonosov; Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, Moscow State University by Lomonosov

Email: nisorokin@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9466-7567

Ph.D., MD, professor at the Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine of Moscow State University by Lomonosov, leading researcher of the Scientific Department of Urology and Andrology of Medical Scientific and Educational Center of Lomonosov Moscow State University

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow; Moscow

E. Afanasevskaya

Medical Scientific and Educational Center of Moscow State University by Lomonosov; Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, Moscow State University by Lomonosov; GBUZ MO Istrinskaya Regional Clinical Hospital

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: e.afanasyevskaya@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0161-6072

urologist at the Department of Urology of GBUZ MO Istrinskaya Regional Clinical Hospital, Istra, Russia; Ph.D. student at the Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, trainee researcher of the Scientific Department of Urology and Andrology of Medical Scientific and Educational Center of Moscow State University by Lomonosov

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow; Moscow; Istra

A. Kadysheva

Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, Moscow State University by Lomonosov

Email: am.kadysheva@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8656-4338

student of the Faculty of Fundamental Medicine of Moscow State University by Lomonosov

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

A. Shurygina

Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, Moscow State University by Lomonosov

Email: mdshuryginaas@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6037-1933

resident (2020–2022) at the Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, Moscow State University by Lomonosov

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

A. Tivtikyan

Medical Scientific and Educational Center of Moscow State University by Lomonosov; Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, Moscow State University by Lomonosov

Email: aleksandertivtikyan@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0686-7935

trainee researcher of the Scientific Department of Urology and Andrology of Medical Scientific and Educational Center of Moscow State University by Lomonosov

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow; Moscow

Z. Gevorkyan

Medical Scientific and Educational Center of Moscow State University by Lomonosov; Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, Moscow State University by Lomonosov; GBUZ MO Istrinskaya Regional Clinical Hospital

Email: Zare19961996@gmail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0006-2054-7056

urologist at the Department of Urology of GBUZ MO Istrinskaya Regional Clinical Hospital, Istra, Russia; Ph.D. student at the Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, trainee researcher of the Scientific Department of Urology and Andrology of Medical Scientific and Educational Center of Moscow State University by Lomonosov

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow; Moscow; Istra

I. Pazin

GBUZ “Public Hospital of Saint Luca”

Email: pazin@endourocenter.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6443-9846

urologist at GBUZ “Public Hospital of Saint Luca”

俄罗斯联邦, Saint Petersburg

V. Dzitiev

Medical Scientific and Educational Center of Moscow State University by Lomonosov

Email: vitdok@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7558-589X

Ph.D., Head of the Department of Urology, researcher of the Scientific Department of Urology and Andrology of Medical Scientific and Educational Center of Moscow State University by Lomonosov

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

M. Ekhoyan

GBUZ “GKB №31” of Moscow Healthcare Department

Email: miso83@list.ru

urologist at the Department of Urology, GBUZ “GKB №31” of Moscow Healthcare Department

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

I. Orlov

GBUZ “Public Hospital of Saint Luca”

Email: doc.orlov@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5566-9789

Ph.D., assistant at the Department of Urology of FGBOU VO North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov, Deputy Director on Medical Care of GBUZ “Public Hospital of Saint Luca”

俄罗斯联邦, Saint Petersburg

A. Kamalov

Medical Scientific and Educational Center of Moscow State University by Lomonosov; Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine, Moscow State University by Lomonosov

Email: armais.kamalov@rambler.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4251-7545

Ph.D., MD, professor, Academician of the RAS, Director of Medical Scientific and Educational Center, Head of the Department of Urology and Andrology, Faculty of Fundamental Medicine of Moscow State University by Lomonosov

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow; Moscow

参考

  1. Rosette J., 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. J Endourol. 2011;25:11–17.
  2. Jackman S.V., Docimo S.G., Gadeddu J.A., et al. The «mini perc» technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol. 1998;16:371e4.
  3. Ruhayel Y., Tepeler A., Dabestani S., et al. Tract Sizes in Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):220–35. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.046.
  4. Desai J., Solanki R. Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): One more armamentarium. BJU Int 2013;112:1046–49.
  5. Desai M.R., Sharma R., Mishra S., et al. Single-step percutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc): The initial clinical report. J Urol. 2011;186:140–45.
  6. Попов С.В., Орлов И.Н., Мартов А.Г., Асфандияров Ф.Р., and Емельяненко А.В. «Наш опыт применения микроперкутанной нефролитотрипсии в лечении крупных камней» Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2018;4:48–53.
  7. Takayasu H., Aso Y., Takagi T., Go T. Clinical application of fiber-optic pyeloureteroscope. Urol Int. 1971;26(2):97–104.
  8. Bagley D., Erhard M. Use of the holmium laser in the upper urinary tract. Tech Urol. 1995;1(1):25–30.
  9. Inoue T., Okada S., Hamamoto S., Fujisawa M. Retrograde intrarenal surgery: Past, present, and future. Investig Clin Urol. 2021;62(2):121–35. doi: 10.4111/icu.20200526
  10. Dindo D., Demartines N., Clavien P.A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. PMID: 15273542; PMCID: PMC1360123.
  11. Erkoc M., Bozkurt M. Comparison of Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Renal Pelvic Stones of 2–3 cm. Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. 2021;31(6):605–609.
  12. Gao X.S., Liao B.H., Chen Y.T., et al. Different Tract Sizes of Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Endourol. 2017;31(11):1101–10. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0547
  13. РФ М. Клинические рекомендации – Мочекаменная болезнь. 2020;1–53.
  14. Soliman T., Sherif H., Sebaey A., et al. Miniperc vs Shockwave Lithotripsy for Average-Sized, Radiopaque Lower Pole Calculi: A Prospective Randomized Study. J Endourol. 2021;35(6):896–901. doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0259.
  15. Tepeler A., Armagan A., Sancaktutar A.A., et al. The role of microperc in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal calculi. J Endourol. 2013;27(1):13–18. doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0422
  16. Tok A., Akbulut F., Buldu I. et al. Comparison of microperc and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for medium-sized lower calyx stones. Urolithiasis. 2016;44(2):155–59.
  17. Gu Z., Yang Y., Ding R., et al. Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Micro-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Kidney Stones: A Meta-Analysis. Urol Int. 2021;105(1–2):64–70. doi: 10.1159/000506716
  18. Zhang B., Hu Y., Gao J., Zhuo D. Micropercutaneous versus Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for the Management of Moderately Sized Kidney Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Urol Int. 2020;104(1–2):94–105. doi: 10.1159/000503796.
  19. Mahmoud M.A., Shawki A.S., Abdallah H.M. et al. Use of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) compared with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) in pediatric kidney stones. World journal of urology. 2022;40(12):3083–89.
  20. Gu Z., Yang Y., Ding R., et al. Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Micro-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Kidney Stones: A Meta-Analysis. Urol Int. 2021;105(1–2):64–70. doi: 10.1159/000506716, Traxer O, Thomas A. Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol. 2013;189(2):580–84.
  21. Sabnis R.B., Ganesamoni R., Ganpule A.P., et al. Current role of microperc in the management of small renal calculi. Indian J Urol. 2013;29(3):214–18. doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.117282

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载
2. Figure. Efficacy of minimally invasive endoscopic nephrolithotripsy

下载 (90KB)
索引源数据

版权所有 © Bionika Media, 2023
##common.cookie##