Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Urolithiasis
Published in: Urolithiasis 2/2016

01-04-2016 | Original Paper

Comparison of microperc and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for medium-sized lower calyx stones

Authors: Adem Tok, Fatih Akbulut, Ibrahim Buldu, Tuna Karatag, Onur Kucuktopcu, Gokhan Gurbuz, Okan Istanbulluoglu, Abdullah Armagan, Abdulkadir Tepeler, Ali Ihsan Tasci

Published in: Urolithiasis | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to present the outcomes of comparative clinical study of microperc versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PNL) in the treatment of lower calyx stones of 10–20 mm. Patients with lower calyx stones treated with microperc (Group-1) or mini-PNL (Group-2) between 2011 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographics of the patients were compared, including age, gender, BMI, stone size, laterality and procedural parameters (operation and fluoroscopy time), and outcomes (success and complication rates). A total of 98 patients were evaluated, assigned to Group-1 (n = 58) and to Group-2 (n = 40). Groups were statistically similar in terms of age, stone size, and BMI (p = 0.3, 0.07, 0.6, respectively). The mean procedure and fluoroscopy duration for Group-1 were 43.02 ± 27.98 min and 112.05 ± 72.5 s, and 52.25 ± 23.09 min and 138.53 ± 56.39 s in Group-2 (p = 0.006 and 0.006). The mean hematocrit drop was significantly higher in Group-2 compared to Group-1 (3.98 vs. 1.96 %; p < 0.001); however, none of the cases required blood transfusion. Overall complication rates exhibited no statistically significant difference (p = 0.57). Stone-free status was similar (86.2 vs. 82.5 %, p = 0.66). The tubeless procedure rate was significantly higher in Group-1 (p < 0.001). In Group-2, duration of hospitalization was significantly longer than in Group-1 (2.63 vs. 1.55 days; p < 0.01). Outcomes of the present retrospective study show that microperc is a treatment option for medium-sized lower calyx stone, being associated with lower blood loss, procedure, reduced fluoroscopy and hospitalization time, and a higher tubeless rate.
Literature
1.
Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Skolarikos A, Straub A, Seitz C (2013) Guidelines on urolithiasis. European Urology Association, Arnhem, pp 1–104
2.
Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam TB, McClinton S (2014) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. Eur Urol 67:612–616CrossRefPubMed
3.
Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, Denstedt JD, Grasso M, Gutierrez-Aceves J et al (2001) Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower-pole nephrolithiasis—initial results. J Urol 166:2072–2080CrossRefPubMed
4.
Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R et al (2005) Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol 173:2005–2009CrossRefPubMed
5.
Resorlu B, Oguz U, Resorlu EB, Oztuna D, Unsal A (2012) The impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery in patients with lower pole renal Stones. Urology 79:61–66CrossRefPubMed
6.
Nagele U, Schilling D, Sievert KD, Stenzl A, Kuczyk M (2008) Management of lower-pole stones of 0.8–1.5 cm maximal diameter by the minimally invasive percutaneous approach. J Endourol 22:1851–1853CrossRefPubMed
7.
Kirac M, Bozkurt ÖF, Tunc L, Guneri C, Unsal A, Biri H (2013) Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of smaller than 15 mm. Urolithiasis 41:241–246CrossRefPubMed
8.
Tepeler A, Armagan A, Sancaktutar AA et al (2013) The role of microperc in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal calculi. J Endourol 27:13–18CrossRefPubMed
9.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH (1994) Limitations of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower caliceal stones: anatomic insight. J Endourol 8:241–247CrossRefPubMed
11.
Elbahnasy AM, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Elashry OM, Smith DS, McDougall EM, Clayman RV (1998) Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy. J Urol 159:676–682CrossRefPubMed
12.
Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, Nyhuis AW, Woods JR (1994) Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol 151:663–667PubMed
13.
Ozturk U, Sener NC, Goktug HN, Nalbant I, Gucuk A, Imamoglu MA (2013) Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, shock wave lithotripsy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi 10–20 mm. Urol Int 91:345–349CrossRefPubMed
14.
Jackman SV, Hedican S, Peters CA, Docimo SG (1998) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants and preschool age children: experience with a new technique. Urology 52:697–701CrossRefPubMed
15.
Helal M, Black T, Lockhart J, Figueroa TE (1997) The Hickman peel-away sheath: alternative for pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 11:171–172CrossRefPubMed
16.
Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Seitz M, Sharma R, Stief CG, Desai M (2011) The “all-seeing needle”: initial results of an optical puncture system confirming access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 59:1054–1059CrossRefPubMed
17.
Desai MR, Sharma R, Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Stief C, Bader M (2011) Single-step percutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc): the initial clinical report. J Urol 186:140–145CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kiremit MC, Guven S, Sarica K, Ozturk A, Buldu İ, Kafkasli A (2015) Contemporary management of medium-sized (10–20 mm) renal stones: a retrospective multicenter observational study. J Endourol 29(7):838–843CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of microperc and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for medium-sized lower calyx stones
Authors
Adem Tok
Fatih Akbulut
Ibrahim Buldu
Tuna Karatag
Onur Kucuktopcu
Gokhan Gurbuz
Okan Istanbulluoglu
Abdullah Armagan
Abdulkadir Tepeler
Ali Ihsan Tasci
Publication date
01-04-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Urolithiasis / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Electronic ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0804-2

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Urolithiasis 2/2016 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Re: Flexible ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stone disease in patients with spinal cord injury

Erratum

Erratum to: Age-related delay in urinary stone clearance in elderly patients with solitary proximal ureteral calculi treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Original Paper

Micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants: a single-center experience

Original Paper

Ultrasound-guided mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients aged less than 3 years: the largest reported single-center experience in China

Original Paper

The optimal minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy strategy for the treatment of staghorn stones in a solitary kidney

Original Paper

Knowledge, attitudes, and practice patterns of recurrent urinary stones prevention in Saudi Arabia