Original Article

Is standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy still the standard treatment modality for renal stones less than three centimeters?

Volume 43 · Issue 2 Publish Date: July 25, 2019
Full Text PDF
DOI
Ömer Sarılar
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Faruk Özgör
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Onur Küçüktopçu
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Burak Uçpınar
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Mehmet Fatih Akbulut
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Metin Savun
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Zafer Gökhan Gürbüz
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Murat Binbay
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Sarılar, Ömer, Özgör, F., Küçüktopçu, O., Uçpınar, B., Akbulut, M. F., Savun, M., … Binbay, M. (2019). Is standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy still the standard treatment modality for renal stones less than three centimeters?. Urology Research and Practice, 43(2), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2017.45793
Full Text Full Text PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Objective: The aim of study was to compare the efficiency and safety of standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sPNL) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) in lower calyx and/or pelvic stones smaller than three centimeters.

Material and methods: From October 2010 to August 2015, 108 mPNL and 176 sPNL procedures were performed for renal stones smaller than three cm and located in the lower calyx and/or renal pelvis. All patients were evaluated preoperatively with intravenous pyelography and/or computed tomography. Intraoperative parameters, post-operative results and complications were recorded. Postoperative success was defined as complete stone clearance and/or clinically insignificant residual fragments at 3rd month.

Results: Preoperative characteristics were similar between sPNL and mPNL groups except previous renal stone operation history and gender. The mean operation time was significantly shorter in the sPNL group (p<0.001). The mean hemoglobin drop was significantly less in the mPNL group (p=0.001), we found a 1.27±1.4 and 0.5±1.3 decrease in mean hemoglobin levels (mg/dL) in the sPNL and mPNL groups, respectively. Transfusion rate was 1.9% in mPNL and 5.6% in sPNL groups, and the difference was statistically significant (p=0.048). Only one patient in the sPNL group needed angiography and embolization. Postoperative JJ stent insertion rate was significantly higher in the mPNL group (p=0.03).

Conclusion: Both sPNL and mPNL are safe and effective surgical procedures for lower calyx and/or pelvis stones smaller than 3 cm. However, use of smaller caliber instruments was associated with a lesser hemoglobin drop and need for transfusion.

Similar Articles

Article Info
Published In
Journal Urology Research and Practice
Volume / Issue Volume 43 · Issue 2
Pages 165-170
History
Published Online July 25, 2019
Copyright
Affiliations
Ömer Sarılar
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Faruk Özgör
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Onur Küçüktopçu
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Burak Uçpınar
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Mehmet Fatih Akbulut
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Metin Savun
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Zafer Gökhan Gürbüz
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Murat Binbay
Clinic of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
Cite this Article
Sarılar, Ömer, Özgör, F., Küçüktopçu, O., Uçpınar, B., Akbulut, M. F., Savun, M., … Binbay, M. (2019). Is standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy still the standard treatment modality for renal stones less than three centimeters?. Urology Research and Practice, 43(2), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2017.45793
Outlines