Top

Published in:

01-12-2013 | Original Article

Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an alternative to retrograde intrarenal surgery and shockwave lithotripsy

Authors: Stephan Kruck, Aristoteles G. Anastasiadis, Thomas R. W. Herrmann, Ute Walcher, Mohamed F. Abdelhafez, André P. Nicklas, Lillian Hölzle, David Schilling, Jens Bedke, Arnulf Stenzl, Udo Nagele

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 6/2013

Abstract

Purpose

There is a lack of studies comparing shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MIP) in renal stone treatment. This study compared treatment outcome, stone-free rate (SFR) and stone-free survival (SFS) with regard to stone size and localization.

Methods

This analysis included 482 first-time-treated patients in the period 2001–2007. Detailed clinical information, stone analysis and metabolic evaluation were evaluated retrospectively. Outcome, SFR and SFS were analyzed with regard to size (<1 vs. ≥1 cm) and localization (lower vs. non-lower pole).

Results

Higher SFRs in lower and non-lower pole stones ≥1 cm were confirmed for RIRS and MIP (p < 0.0001). A regression model confirmed a higher risk of non-lower pole stone persistence for SWL versus RIRS (OR: 2.27, p = 0.034, SWL vs. MIP (OR: 3.23, p = 0.009) and larger stone burden ≥1 versus <1 cm (OR: 2.43, p = 0.006). In accordance, a higher risk of residual stones was found in the lower pole for SWL versus RIRS (OR: 2.67, p = 0.009), SWL versus MIP (OR: 4.75, p < 0.0001) and stones ≥1 cm versus <1 cm (OR: 3.02, p = 0.0006). In RIRS and MIP patients, more complications, stenting, prolonged disability, need/duration of hospitalization and analgesia were noticed (p < 0.05). Overall SFS increased from SWL, RIRS, to MIP (p < 0.001). SWL showed lower SFS for non-lower pole (p = 0.006) and lower pole stones (p = 0.007).

Conclusions

RIRS and MIP were shown to have higher stone-free rates and SFS compared to SWL. The price for better outcome was higher, considering tolerable complication rates. Despite larger preoperative stone burden, MIP achieved high and long-term treatment success.

Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG (2010) Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Rev Urol 12(2–3):e86–e96PubMed

Knoll T, Schubert AB, Fahlenkamp D, Leusmann DB, Wendt-Nordahl G, Schubert G (2011) Urolithiasis through the ages: data on more than 200,000 urinary stone analyses. J Urol 185(4):1304–1311. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.073 PubMedCrossRef

Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Straub M, Seitz C EAU guidelines on urolithiasis 2011 uroweb 2011 http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/18_Urolithiasis.pdf

Lahme S, Bichler KH, Strohmaier WL, Götz T (2001) Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stones. Eur Urol 40(6):619–624PubMedCrossRef

Nagele U, Schilling D, Anastasiadis AG, Walcher U, Sievert KD, Merseburger AS, Kuczyk M, Stenzl A (2008) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy (MIP). Der Urologe Aus A 47(9):1066, 1068–1073. doi:10.1007/s00120-008-1814-2

Nagele U, Horstmann M, Sievert KD, Kuczyk MA, Walcher U, Hennenlotter J, Stenzl A, Anastasiadis AG (2007) A newly designed amplatz sheath decreases intrapelvic irrigation pressure during mini-percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy: an in vitro pressure-measurement and microscopic study. J Endourol Endourol Soc 21(9):1113–1116. doi:10.1089/end.2006.0230 CrossRef

Nagele U, Schilling D, Sievert KD, Stenzl A, Kuczyk M (2008) Management of lower-pole stones of 0.8 to 1.5 cm maximal diameter by the minimally invasive percutaneous approach. J Endourol Endourol Soc 22(9):1851–1853; (discussion 1857). doi:10.1089/end.2008.9791

Kruck S, Sonnleithner M, Hennenlotter J, Walcher U, Stenzl A, Herrmann TR, Nagele U (2011) Interventional stress in renal stone treatment. J Endourol 25(6):1069–1073. doi:10.1089/end.2010.0590 PubMedCrossRef

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(1):140–145. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.029 PubMedCrossRef

10.

Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, Denstedt JD, Grasso M, Gutierrez-Aceves J, Kahn RI, Leveillee RJ, Lingeman JE, Macaluso JN Jr, Munch LC, Nakada SY, Newman RC, Pearle MS, Preminger GM, Teichman J, Woods JR (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(6):2072–2080. doi:10.1097/00005392-200112000-00014 PubMedCrossRef

11.

Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R, Kuo R, Preminger GM, Nadler RB, Macaluso J, Monga M, Kumar U, Dushinski J, Albala DM, Wolf JS Jr, Assimos D, Fabrizio M, Munch LC, Nakada SY, Auge B, Honey J, Ogan K, Pattaras J, McDougall EM, Averch TD, Turk T, Pietrow P, Watkins S (2008) Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol 179(5 Suppl):S69–S73. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.140

12.

Ben Saddik MA, Al-Qahtani Sejiny S, Ndoye M, Gil-Diez-de-Medina S, Merlet B, Thomas A, Haab F, Traxer O (2011) Flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of kidney stone between 2 and 3 cm. Prog Urol 21(5):327–332. doi:10.1016/j.purol.2010.07.012 PubMedCrossRef

13.

Pevzner M, Stisser B, Luskin J, Yeamans J, Cheng-Lucey M, Pahira J (2011) Alternative management of complex renal stones. Int Urol Nephrol 43(3):631–638. doi:10.1007/s11255-010-9880-y

14.

Matlaga BR (2009) Contemporary surgical management of upper urinary tract calculi. J Urol 181(5):2152–2156. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.01.023 PubMedCrossRef

15.

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(2):205–213. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae PubMedCrossRef

16.

Osman MM, Alfano Y, Kamp S, Haecker A, Alken P, Michel MS, Knoll T (2005) 5-year-follow-up of patients with clinically insignificant residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 47(6):860–864. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2005.01.005 PubMedCrossRef

17.

Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y, Can CE, Unsal A (2011) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol 25(7):1131–1135. doi:10.1089/end.2010.0737 PubMedCrossRef

18.

Seitz C, Desai M, Hacker A, Hakenberg OW, Liatsikos E, Nagele U, Tolley D (2012) Incidence, prevention, and management of complications following percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Eur Urol 61(1):146–158. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.09.016 PubMedCrossRef

19.

Labate G, Modi P, Timoney A, Cormio L, Zhang X, Louie M, Grabe M, de la Rosette On Behalf Of The Croes Pcnl Study Group J (2011) The percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: classification of complications. J Endourol 25(8):1275–1280. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0067

20.

Tan YM, Yip SK, Chong TW, Wong MY, Cheng C, Foo KT (2002) Clinical experience and results of ESWL treatment for 3,093 urinary calculi with the Storz Modulith SL 20 lithotripter at the Singapore general hospital. Scand J Urol Nephrol 36(5):363–367. doi:10.1080/003655902320783872 PubMedCrossRef

21.

Nagele U, Schilling D, Anastasiadis AG, Walcher U, Sievert KD, Merseburger AS, Kuczyk M (1066) Stenzl A (2008) [Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy (MIP)]. Urol A 47(9):1068–1073. doi:10.1007/s00120-008-1814-2

22.

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; discussion 899-900. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09936.x

23.

Lahme S, Zimmermanns V, Hochmuth A, Janitzki V (2008) Minimally invasive PCNL (mini-perc). Alternative treatment modality or replacement of conventional PCNL?. Der Urologe Ausg A 47(5):563–568. doi:10.1007/s00120-008-1708-3

24.

Schilling D, Gakis G, Walcher U, Stenzl A, Nagele U (2011) The learning curve in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy: a 1-year retrospective evaluation of a novice and an expert. World J Urol 29(6):749–753. doi:10.1007/s00345-010-0553-3 PubMedCrossRef

25.

Knoll T (2009) S2 guidelines on diagnostic, therapy and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis: part 1: diagnostic and therapy. Urol A 48(8):917–924. doi:10.1007/s00120-009-2047-8

26.

Abe T, Akakura K, Kawaguchi M, Ueda T, Ichikawa T, Ito H, Nozumi K, Suzuki K (2005) Outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary-tract stones: a large-scale study at a single institution. J Endourol 19(7):768–773. doi:10.1089/end.2005.19.768 PubMedCrossRef

27.

Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, Dah RJ, Pace KT (2011) A comparison of treatment modalities for renal calculi between 100 and 300 mm²: are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy equivalent? J Endourol 25(3):481–485. doi:10.1089/end.2010.0208 PubMedCrossRef

28.

Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M (2009) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD007044. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007044.pub2

Title: Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an alternative to retrograde intrarenal surgery and shockwave lithotripsy
Authors: Stephan Kruck
Aristoteles G. Anastasiadis
Thomas R. W. Herrmann
Ute Walcher
Mohamed F. Abdelhafez
André P. Nicklas
Lillian Hölzle
David Schilling
Jens Bedke
Arnulf Stenzl
Udo Nagele
Publication date: 01-12-2013
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 6/2013
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0962-6

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an alternative to retrograde intrarenal surgery and shockwave lithotripsy

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2013

Prostate cancer incidence and survival in immigrants to Sweden

An exploratory, placebo-controlled, dose–response study of the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in spinal cord injury patients with urinary incontinence due to neurogenic detrusor overactivity

A Population-based survey of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and symptom-specific bother: results from the Brazilian LUTS epidemiology study (BLUES)

Cytoreductive nephrectomy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the era of targeted therapy in the United States: a SEER analysis

Re-irradiation for salvage of prostate cancer failures after primary radiotherapy

Outcomes of salvage prostate cryotherapy stratified by pre-treatment PSA: update from the COLD registry