Top

World Journal of Urology

Published in:

01-07-2018 | Invited Review

Miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical efficacy and safety profile

Authors: N. F. Davis, M. R. Quinlan, C. Poyet, N. Lawrentschuk, D. M. Bolton, D. Webb, G. S. Jack

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 7/2018

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to comparatively evaluate clinical outcomes of mini-PCNL and FURS for treating urinary tract calculi in a single session.

Methods

A systematic search using electronic databases was performed for studies comparing mini-PCNL and FURS for the treatment of urinary tract calculi. The primary outcome measurements were stone-free rates (SFRs) and complication rates for both techniques. Secondary outcome measurements were to compare patient demographics, operative duration, and inpatient stay. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager version 5.3 software.

Results

Sixteen studies on 1598 patients (n = 877 for mini-PCNL and n = 721 for FURS) met inclusion criteria. Demographics including age (p = 0.26), body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.51), and gender ratio (p = 0.6), were similar in both groups. Overall, SFR was significantly greater in the mini-PCNL group compared to the FURS group (n = 763/877, 89.3 ± 8.4% versus n = 559/721, 80.1 ± 13.3% [OR 2.01; 95% CI 1.53–2.64; p < 0.01]). Duration of inpatient stay was significantly greater in the mini-PCNL group compared to the FURS group (n = 877, 4 ± 1.6 days versus n = 721, 2.5 ± 2.2 days, respectively [WMD: 1.77; 95% CI 1.16–2.38, p < 0.01]. Overall complication rates were not significantly different between mini-PCNL and FURS (n = 171/877, 19.5 ± 19.1% versus n = 112/721, 15.5 ± 18.9%, respectively [OR 1.43; 95% CI 0.85–2.4, p = 0.18]).

Conclusions

Mini-PCNL is associated with greater SFRs and longer inpatient stay compared to FURS. Complication rates were similar for both techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of both technologies should be familiar to urologists and conveyed to patients prior to urological intervention for nephrolithiasis.

Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M et al (2016) EAU Guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69(3):475–482CrossRefPubMed

Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART II. J Urol 196(4):1161–1169CrossRefPubMed

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

De S, Autorino R, Kim FJ, Zargar H, Laydner H, Balsamo R et al (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67:125–137CrossRefPubMed

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

Monga M, Oglievie S (2000) Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 14(3):269–272CrossRef

Jackman SV, Docimo SG, Cadeddu J, Bishoff JT, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW (1998) The “mini-perc” technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 16(6):371–374CrossRefPubMed

Zhu W, Liu Y, Liu L, Lei M, Yuan J, Wan SP et al (2015) Minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 43(6):563–570CrossRefPubMed

Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, Maclennan S, Lam TBL et al (2015) 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(4):612–616CrossRefPubMed

10.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Clark HD, Wells GA, Huët C, McAlister FA, Salmi LR, Fergusson D et al (1999) Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale. Control Clin Trials 20(5):448–452CrossRefPubMed

12.

Wells GA, Shea B, O’connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M et al (2014) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical{_}epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 13 Aug 2014. Ottawa Hosp Res Inst [Internet]. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp

13.

Xiao-jian G, Jian Lin L, Yan X (2013) Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy. World J Urol 31(6):1605–1610CrossRef

14.

Singh H (2015) A prospective, randomized comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and miniperc for treatment of 1 to 2 cm radiolucent lower calyceal renal calculi: a single center experience. J Urol 193(1):160–164CrossRefPubMed

15.

Lee JW, Park J, Lee SB, Son H, Cho SY, Jeong H (2015) Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones larger than 10 mm: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Urology 86(5):873–877CrossRefPubMed

16.

Knoll T, Jessen JP, Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G (2011) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus miniaturized PNL for solitary renal calculi of 10–30 mm size. World J Urol 29(6):755–759CrossRefPubMed

17.

Pan J, Chen Q, Xue W, Chen Y, Xia L, Chen H et al (2013) RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2–3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting. Urol Res 41(1):73–78

18.

Wilhelm K, Hein S, Adams F, Schlager D, Miernik A, Schoenthaler M (2015) Ultra-mini PCNL versus flexible ureteroscopy: a matched analysis of analgesic consumption and treatment-related patient satisfaction in patients with renal stones 10–35 mm. World J Urol 33(12):2131–2136CrossRefPubMed

19.

Zeng G, Zhu W, Li J, Zhao Z, Zeng T, Liu C et al (2015) The comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for stones larger than 2 cm in patients with a solitary kidney: a matched-pair analysis. World J Urol 33(8):1159–1164CrossRefPubMed

20.

Ferroud V, Lapouge O, Dousseau A, Rakototiana A, Robert G, Ballanger P (2011) Urétéroscopie souple et mini néphrolithotomie percutanée dans le traitement des calculs pyélo-caliciels inférieurs ou égaux à 2 cm. Prog Urol 21(2):79–84CrossRefPubMed

21.

Schoenthaler M, Wilhelm K, Hein S, Adams F, Schlager D, Wetterauer U et al (2015) Ultra-mini PCNL versus flexible ureteroscopy: a matched analysis of treatment costs (endoscopes and disposables) in patients with renal stones 10–20 mm. World J Urol 33(10):1601–1605CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kruck S, Anastasiadis AG, Herrmann TRW, Walcher U, Abdelhafez MF, Nicklas AP et al (2013) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an alternative to retrograde intrarenal surgery and shockwave lithotripsy. World J Urol 31(6):1555–1561CrossRefPubMed

23.

Ozgor F, Tepeler A, Elbir F, Sarilar O, Gurbuz ZG, Armagan A et al (2016) Comparison of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for the management of 10–20 mm renal stones in obese patients. World J Urol 34(8):1169–1173CrossRefPubMed

24.

Zhang Y, Yu CF, Jin SH, Zhu H, Na YQ (2014) A prospective comparative study between minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in supine position and flexible ureteroscopy in the management of single large stone in the proximal ureter. Urology 83(5):999–1002CrossRefPubMed

25.

Kirac M, Bozkurt ÖF, Tunc L, Guneri C, Unsal A, Biri H (2013) Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and minipercutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of smaller than 15 mm. Urol Res 41(3):241–246

26.

Pelit ES, Atis G, Kati B, Akin Y, Çiftçi H, Culpan M et al (2017) Comparison of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in preschool-aged children. Urology 101:21–25CrossRefPubMed

27.

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):896–899PubMed

28.

Jiang H, Yu Z, Chen L et al. (2017) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for upper urinary stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2035851

29.

Turna B, Stein RJ, Smaldone MC, Santos BR, Kefer JC, Jackman SV et al (2008) Safety and efficacy of flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium:YAG lithotripsy for intrarenal stones in anticoagulated cases. J Urol 179(4):1415–1419CrossRefPubMed

30.

Perera M, Papa NP, Kinnear N, Wetherell D, Lawrentschuk N, Webb DR et al (2016) Urolithiasis treatment in Australia: the age of ureteroscopic intervention. J Endourol 30(11):1194–1199CrossRefPubMed

31.

Hu H, Lu Y, He D, Cui L, Zhang J, Zhao Z et al (2016) Comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of intermediate proximal ureteral and renal stones in the elderly. Urolithiasis 44(5):427–434CrossRefPubMed

32.

Sabnis RB, Jagtap J, Mishra S, Desai M (2012) Treating renal calculi 1–2 cm in diameter with minipercutaneous or retrograde intrarenal surgery: a prospective comparative study. BJU Int 110(8):346–349CrossRef

33.

Gao XS, Liao BH, Chen YT, Feng SJ, Gao R, Luo DY, Liu JM, Wang KJ (2017) Different tract sizes of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 31(11):1101–1110CrossRefPubMed

Title: Miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical efficacy and safety profile
Authors: N. F. Davis
M. R. Quinlan
C. Poyet
N. Lawrentschuk
D. M. Bolton
D. Webb
G. S. Jack
Publication date: 01-07-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 7/2018
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2230-x

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical efficacy and safety profile

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2018

Transurethral resection of bladder cancer on the lateral bladder wall without obturator nerve block: extent of adductor spasms using the monopolar versus bipolar technique—a prospective randomised study

Comparison of fosfomycin against fluoroquinolones for transrectal prostate biopsy prophylaxis

Reflections on personalized management of UTUC

Is neutrophil-to-lymphocytes ratio a clinical relevant preoperative biomarker in upper tract urothelial carcinoma? A meta-analysis of 4385 patients

The effectiveness of targeted relative to empiric prophylaxis on infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a meta-analysis

Do longer or shorter cores yield more cancer?