Top

Published in:

01-12-2020 | Original Paper

Safety and efficacy of a single middle calyx access (MCA) in mini-PCNL

Authors: Sanjay Khadgi, Ahmed R. EL-Nahas, Maitrey Darrad, Abdullatif AL-Terki

Published in: Urolithiasis | Issue 6/2020

Abstract

To compare outcomes of a single middle calyx access (MCA) with a single upper or lower calyceal access in mini-PCNL. From May 2015 through August 2018, patients’ files who underwent a single renal access mini-PCNL were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent fluoroscopic-guided access (16–20 F) in the prone position. They were categorized into group 1 (MCA) and group 2 (either upper or lower calyceal access). Compared preoperative items included stone location, size, number and complexity (according to Guy’s score). The compared outcome parameters were complication and stone-free rates. The study comprised 512 consecutive patients, 374 patients in group 1 and 138 in group 2. A single MCA was utilized to access 95% of proximal ureteral calculi, 89% for ureteropelvic junction stones, and 84% for stones present in the pelvicalyceal system and ureter. MCA was used in 89% of complete staghorn stones and 73% of multiple stones. the Stone-free rates (93% vs 90.6%, P = 0.350) and the complications rates (8% vs 7.2%, P = 0.772) were comparable between group 1 and 2 despite that MCA was used for most cases with complex stones. Complications severity were also comparable (P = 0.579). Mini-PCNL performed through a single MCA is effective and safe. This access can be used for the treatment of renal and upper ureteral calculi of different complexities and locations.

Al-Terki A, Khadgi S, El-Nahas A, Darrad M (2019) Middle calyx access in mini-PCNL: the universal access. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14748CrossRef

Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, Pace KT, Pais VM Jr, Pearle MS, Preminger GM, Razvi H, Shah O, Matlaga BR (2016) Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline. PART II. J Urol 196(4):1161–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.091CrossRefPubMed

Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69(3):475–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041CrossRefPubMed

Hassan M, El-Nahas AR, Sheir KZ, El-Tabey NA, El-Assmy AM, Elshal AM, Shokeir AA (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for treating a 20–30 mm single renal pelvic stone. Arab J Urol 13(3):212–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2015.04.002CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bryniarski P, Paradysz A, Zyczkowski M, Kupilas A, Nowakowski K, Bogacki R (2012) A randomized controlled study to analyze the safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the management of renal stones more than 2 cm in diameter. J Endourol 26(1):52–57. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0235CrossRefPubMed

De S, Autorino R, Kim FJ, Zargar H, Laydner H, Balsamo R, Torricelli FC, Di Palma C, Molina WR, Monga M, De Sio M (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67(1):125–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.003CrossRefPubMed

de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M, Gutierrez J, Lingeman J, Scarpa R, Tefekli A (2011) The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 25(1):11–17. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0424CrossRefPubMed

Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S, Bapat S, Desai M (2004) Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study. J Endourol 18(8):715–722. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2004.18.715CrossRefPubMed

Lahme S (2018) Miniaturisation of PCNL. Urolithiasis 46(1):99–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1029-3CrossRefPubMed

10.

Helal M, Black T, Lockhart J, Figueroa TE (1997) The Hickman peel-away sheath: alternative for pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 11(3):171–172. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1997.11.171CrossRefPubMed

11.

ElSheemy MS, Elmarakbi AA, Hytham M, Ibrahim H, Khadgi S, Al-Kandari AM (2018) Mini vs standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones: a comparative study. Urolithiasis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1055-9CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kukreja RA (2018) Should mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MiniPNL/Miniperc) be the ideal tract for medium-sized renal calculi (15–30 mm)? World J Urol 36(2):285–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2128-zCrossRefPubMed

13.

Ruhayel Y, Tepeler A, Dabestani S, MacLennan S, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Turk C, Yuan Y, Knoll T (2017) Tract sizes in miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review from the European association of urology urolithiasis guidelines panel. Eur Urol 72(2):220–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.046CrossRefPubMed

14.

Ahmad AA, Alhunaidi O, Aziz M, Omar M, Al-Kandari AM, El-Nahas A, El-Shazly M (2017) Current trends in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an internet-based survey. Ther Adv Urol 9(9–10):219–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287217724726CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Netto NR Jr, Ikonomidis J, Ikari O, Claro JA (2005) Comparative study of percutaneous access for staghorn calculi. Urology 65(4):659–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.10.081(discussion 662–653)CrossRefPubMed

16.

Wong C, Leveillee RJ (2002) Single upper-pole percutaneous access for treatment of > or = 5-cm complex branched staghorn calculi: is shockwave lithotripsy necessary? J Endourol 16(7):477–481. https://doi.org/10.1089/089277902760367430CrossRefPubMed

17.

Zeng GH, Liu Y, Zhong W, Fei X, Song Y (2015) The role of middle calyx puncture in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: relative factors and choice considerations. Miner Urol Nefrol 67(4):335–345

18.

Falahatkar S, Kazemnezhad E, Moghaddam KG, Kazemzadeh M, Asadollahzade A, Farzan A, Damavand RS, Aval HB, Esmaeili S (2013) Middle calyx access in complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Can Urol Assoc J 7(5–6):E306–E310. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.11307CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Song Y, Jin W, Hua S, Fei X (2016) Middle calyx access is better for single renal pelvic stone in ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urolithiasis 44(5):459–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0866-9CrossRefPubMed

20.

Li X, He Z, Wu K, Li SK, Zeng G, Yuan J, He Y, Lei M (2009) Chinese minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the Guangzhou experience. J Endourol 23(10):1693–1697. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.1537CrossRefPubMed

21.

Munver R, Delvecchio FC, Newman GE, Preminger GM (2001) Critical analysis of supracostal access for percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 166(4):1242–1246CrossRef

22.

Lojanapiwat B, Prasopsuk S (2006) Upper-pole access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: comparison of supracostal and infracostal approaches. J Endourol 20(7):491–494. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2006.20.491CrossRefPubMed

23.

Akman T, Binbay M, Sari E, Yuruk E, Tepeler A, Akcay M, Muslumanoglu AY, Tefekli A (2011) Factors affecting bleeding during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: single surgeon experience. J Endourol 25(2):327–333. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0302CrossRefPubMed

24.

Mishra S, Sharma R, Garg C, Kurien A, Sabnis R, Desai M (2011) Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int 108(6):896–899. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2010.09936.x(discussion 899–900)CrossRefPubMed

25.

Zeng G, Zhao Z, Wan S, Mai Z, Wu W, Zhong W, Yuan J (2013) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for simple and complex renal caliceal stones: a comparative analysis of more than 10,000 cases. J Endourol 27(10):1203–1208. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0061CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Nicklas AP, Schilling D, Bader MJ, Herrmann TR, Nagele U (2015) The vacuum cleaner effect in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. World J Urol 33(11):1847–1853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1541-4CrossRefPubMed

Title: Safety and efficacy of a single middle calyx access (MCA) in mini-PCNL
Authors: Sanjay Khadgi
Ahmed R. EL-Nahas
Maitrey Darrad
Abdullatif AL-Terki
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Urolithiasis / Issue 6/2020
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Electronic ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01176-4

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Safety and efficacy of a single middle calyx access (MCA) in mini-PCNL

Abstract

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2020

Nox1-derived oxidative stress as a common pathogenic link between obesity and hyperoxaluria-related kidney injury

ENIUS. European Network of multidisciplinary research to Improve the Urinary Stents. COSTS Actions. CA16217. European Cooperation in Science & Technology

In Memoriam: Jose Manuel Reis dos Santos

Use 3D printing technology to enhance stone free rate in single tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of staghorn stones

When is the best time to perform external physical vibration lithecbole (EPVL) after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): a multi-center study based on randomized controlled trials

Oral chemolysis is an effective, non-invasive therapy for urinary stones suspected of uric acid content