Top

World Journal of Urology

Published in:

01-12-2017 | Original Article

Implementation of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MIP): comparison of the initial learning curve with the later on clinical routine in a tertiary centre

Authors: T. Bergmann, T. R. W. Herrmann, Th. Schiller, U. Zimmermann, M. Burchardt

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 12/2017

Abstract

Objective

We report on the comparison of clinical results of the early phase of implementation of minimally invasive PNL (MIP) in a mentor-based approach with the later on clinical routine in a tertiary centre.

Patients and methods

From January 2010 until January 2015 MIP was performed in 190 patients. Stone and patient characteristics were recorded in prospective manner. Perioperative complications were recorded within the Clavien-Classification. The first 120 consecutive patients undergoing MIP were evaluated and divided into three groups of 40 patients each. Mentor-based introduction of MIP was done within the first 40 patients (group A). Further patients were treated on routine clinical practice basis (group B and C). Treatment outcome was compared within the three groups.

Results

The groups did not significantly differ with regard to patient characteristics, operation time and decline in haemoglobin. In the mentor-based series mean stone size was 21.7 ± 12.6 vs. 15.6 ± 7.9 and 16.1 ± 8.4 mm in group B and C (p = 0.033). Primary stone-free rates were 65, 87.5 and 87.5% for the three groups (p = 0.015). Stone-free rate was higher in smaller and simple stones. Overall, complication rate was 41.7% including 36.7% Clavien grade I and II complications.

Conclusions

MIP can be implemented safe and effectively with mentor-based approach. MIP has a high safety profile, which allows high safety and efficacy of MIP at the time of implementation.

Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51(4):899–906 (discussion 906) CrossRefPubMed

Kukreja R et al (2004) First prize: factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Prospective Study. J Endourol 18(8):715–722CrossRefPubMed

Giusti G et al (2007) Miniperc? No, thank you! Eur Urol 51(3):810–814CrossRefPubMed

Nagele U et al. (2008) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy (MIP). Urologe A 47(9):1066, 1068–73

Lahme S et al (2001) Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stones. Eur Urol 40(6):619–624CrossRefPubMed

Nagele U et al (2008) Management of lower-pole stones of 0.8–1.5 cm maximal diameter by the minimally invasive percutaneous approach. J Endourol 22(9):1851–1853 (discussion 1857) CrossRefPubMed

Nagele U et al (2008) Lower pole calyceal stones. Urologe A 47(7):875–884CrossRefPubMed

Lahme S et al (2008) Minimal-invasive PCNL (mini-Perc). Der Urologe 47(5):563–568CrossRefPubMed

Zeng G et al (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):1203–1208CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Schilling D et al (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):749–753CrossRefPubMed

11.

de la Rosette JJ et al (2008) Training in percutaneous nephrolithotomy–a critical review. Eur Urol 54(5):994–1001CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ziaee SA et al (2010) Evaluation of the learning curve for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J 7(4):226–231PubMed

13.

Tefekli A et al (2008) Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified Clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 53(1):184–190CrossRefPubMed

14.

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):205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Fernstrom I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10(3):257–259CrossRefPubMed

16.

Mishra S et al (2011) Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1–2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int 108(6):896–899 (discussion 899–900) PubMed

17.

Abdelhafez MF et al (2013) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparative study of the management of small and large renal stones. Urology 81(2):241–245CrossRefPubMed

18.

Abdelhafez MF et al (2016) Minimally invasive versus conventional large-bore percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of large-sized renal calculi: surgeon’s preference? Scand J Urol 50(3):212–215CrossRefPubMed

19.

Tefekli A, Cordeiro E, de la Rosette JJ (2013) An update on percutaneous nephrolithotomy: lessons learned from the CROES PCNL Global Study. Minerva Med 104(1):1–21PubMed

20.

Cheng F et al (2010) Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones. J Endourol 24(10):1579–1582CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kukreja R et al (2004) Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study. J Endourol 18(8):715–722CrossRefPubMed

22.

Abdelhafez MF et al (2012) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy (PCNL) as an effective and safe procedure for large renal stones. BJU Int 110(11):E1022–E1026CrossRefPubMed

23.

Fuller A et al (2012) The CROES percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: the influence of body mass index on outcome. J Urol 188(1):138–144CrossRefPubMed

24.

Opondo D et al (2012) Impact of case volumes on the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 62(6):1181–1187CrossRefPubMed

Title: Implementation of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MIP): comparison of the initial learning curve with the later on clinical routine in a tertiary centre
Authors: T. Bergmann
T. R. W. Herrmann
Th. Schiller
U. Zimmermann
M. Burchardt
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 12/2017
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2069-6

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Implementation of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MIP): comparison of the initial learning curve with the later on clinical routine in a tertiary centre

Abstract

Objective

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2017

A novel vaporization–enucleation technique for benign prostate hyperplasia using 120-W HPS GreenLight™ laser: Seoul technique II in comparison with vaporization and previously reported modified vaporization–resection technique

Efficacy of PDE5Is and SSRIs in men with premature ejaculation: a new systematic review and five meta-analyses

Prognostic significance of Fuhrman grade and age for cancer-specific and overall survival in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma: results of an international multi-institutional study on 2189 patients

Oncologic surveillance following radical cystectomy: an individualized risk-based approach

Influence of acetylsalicylic acid and low-molecular weight heparins on the formation of renal hematoma after shock wave lithotripsy

A prospective, randomized trial comparing thulium vapoenucleation with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic obstruction: perioperative safety and efficacy