Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ultramini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of 10–30 mm calculi: a randomized controlled trial

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The surgical management of renal stones 10–30 mm is usually performed with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Standard form of percutaneous nephrolithotomy has paved the way for miniaturized PCNL in many centres. We wanted to evaluate the efficacy, safety and the cost-effectiveness of ultramini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP) versus RIRS in the treatment of renal stones with stone burden 10–30 mm. Patients with renal stone burden 10–30 mm were prospectively randomized into either UMP or RIRS. The demographic data, stone characteristic, operative time and cost of the equipment were recorded. The stone free status, analgesic requirement, deterioration of the renal function and hemoglobin and the postoperative complications as per Clavein–Dindo grade were recorded. One hundred and fifty patients met inclusion criteria. Out of these 98 underwent UMP and 46 RIRS. Six withdrew the consent before the procedure. Mean stone size was comparable in either of the groups. Mean laser time and stone extraction time was significantly less for UMP compared to RIRS (41.17 min versus 73.58 min p < 0.0001). Mean consumable costs in the UMP group were considerably less at US$45.73 compared to the RIRS group at $423.11 (p < 0.0001). The stone free rates at 1 month of follow-up were 100% for UMP group and 73% for RIRS group. There were insignificant changes to mean hemoglobin and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in all patients and the average length of the stay was similar in both the groups. The postoperative complications revealed Grade I and II rate of 10% in the UMP group and 35% in the RIRS group, respectively. We concluded that UMP to be safe, effective and more economical to the RIRS for renal stones up to 3 cm in size.

Trial registered with ISRCTN registry ID ISRCTN20935105, Retrospective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. European Association of Urologists (2019) Guidelines: urolithiasis. European Association of Urologists

    Google Scholar 

  2. Trinchieri A (2008) Epidemiology of urolithiasis, an update. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 5(2):101–106

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Taylor E, Miller J, Thomas C, Stoller ML (2012) Complications associated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Trans Androl Urol 1(4):223–228

    Google Scholar 

  4. Proietti S, Giusti G, Desai M, Ganpule AP (2017) A critical review of miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is smaller better? Eur Urol Focus 3(1):56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.05.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ruhayel Y, Tepeler A, Dabestani S, MacLennan S et al (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.2017.01.046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Desai J, Solanki R (2013) Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): one more armamentarium. BJU Int 112(7):1046–1049. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, Schulam PG (2009) Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for multiple unilateral intrarenal stones. Eur Urol 55(5):1190–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Binbay M, Yuruk E, Akman T et al (2010) Is there a difference in the outcomes between digital and fibreoptic flexible ureterorenoscopy procedures? J Endourol 24(12):1929–1934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bagcioglu M, Demir A, Sulhan H, Karadag MA, Uslu M, Tekdogan UY (2016) Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in terms of cost-effectiveness: analysis of 111 procedures. Urolithiasis 44(4):339–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schoenthaler M, Wilhelm K, Hein S 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):1601–1605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1489-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Datta SN, Solanki R, Desai J (2016) Prospective outcomes of ultra mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a consecutive cohort study. J Urol 195(3):741–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hyams ES, Munver R, Bird VG, Uberoi J, Shah O (2010) Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2 to 3 cm: a multi-institutional experience. J Endourol 24(10):1583–1588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Riley JM, Stearmen L, Troxel S (2009) Retrograde ureteroscopy for renal stones larger than 2.5 cm. J Endourol 23(9):1395–1398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S, Bapat S, Desai M (2004) Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study. J Endourol 18(18):715–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Li LY, Gao X, Yang M et al (2010) Does a smaller tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy contribute to less invasiveness? A prospective comparative study. Urology 75(1):56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Agarwal MS, Agarwal K, Jindal T, Sharma M (2016) Ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a minimally invasive option for percutaneous stone removal. Indian J Urol 32(2):132–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cheng H, Clymer JW, Po-Han CB et al (2018) Prolonged operative duration is associated with complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg Res 229:134–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zeng G, Zhang T, Aggarwal M, He X et al (2018) Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 1–2 cm lower pole renal calculi: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial. BJU Int 122(6):1034–1040. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14427 (Epub 2018 Jul 26. PMID: 29873874)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rippel CA, Nikkel L, Lin YK et al (2012) Residual fragments following ureteroscopic lithotripsy: incidence and predictors on postoperative computerized tomography. J Urol 188(6):2246–2251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ghani KR, Wolf JS Jr (2015) What is the stone-free rate following flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones? Nat Rev Urol 12(5):281–288 (Published correction appears in Nat Rev Urol Jul;12(7):363. Wolf, J Stuart [corrected to Wolf, J Stuart Jr])

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nabi G, Cook J, N’Dow J, McClinton S (2007) Outcomes of stenting after uncomplicated ureteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 334(7593):572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Xun Y, Wang Q, Hu H et al (2017) Tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update meta-analysis. BMC Urol 17:102

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Traxer O, Thomas A (2013) Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol 189(2):580–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Monga M, Best S, Venkatesh R et al (2006) Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective study. J Urol 176(1):137–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Iremashvili V, Li S, Penniston KL, Best SL, Hedican SP, Nakada SY (2019) Role of residual fragments on the risk of repeat surgery after flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy: single center study. J Urol 201(2):358–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.09.053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chew BH, Brotherhood HL, Sur RL et al (2016) Natural history, complications and re-intervention rates of asymptomatic residual stone fragments after ureteroscopy: a report from the EDGE Research Consortium. J Urol 195(4 Pt 1):982–986

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Colchester General Hospital, Colchester, UK

    Soumendra N. Datta, Ramandeep S. Chalokia & K. W. Wing

  2. Department of Urology, Samved Hospital, Ahmedabad, India

    K. Patel, R. Solanki & Janak Desai

Authors
  1. Soumendra N. Datta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ramandeep S. Chalokia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. W. Wing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Solanki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Janak Desai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janak Desai.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Datta, S.N., Chalokia, R.S., Wing, K.W. et al. Ultramini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of 10–30 mm calculi: a randomized controlled trial. Urolithiasis 50, 361–367 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01304-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01304-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation