RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2–3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting

The aim of the study was to compare the clinical outcome and the cost-effectiveness between retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (mPCNL) for the management of single renal stone of 2–3 cm in Chinese medical setting. From May 2005 to February 2011, 115 patients with solitary renal calculi were treated either by RIRS or mPCNL. 56 patients were in RIRS group while 59 were in mPCNL group. Patients’ demographics between the two groups, in terms of gender, age, BMI, history of ESWL as well as stone side, stone location and stone size were comparable. Peri-operative course, clinical outcome, complication rates and medical cost were compared. The effective quotient (EQ) of two groups was calculated. Data were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test, Chi-square test and Student’s t test. EQ for RIRS and mPCNL were 0.52 and 0.90. The initial stone-free rate (SFR) of RIRS group and mPCNL group was 71.4 and 96.6 %, respectively (P = 0.000). The mean procedure number was 1.18 in RIRS group and 1.03 in mPCNL group, respectively (P = 0.035). The operative time for RIRS was longer (P = 0.000) while the mean hospital stay was shorter (P = 0.000). There was no statistical difference in peri-operative complications between the groups. The initial hospitalization cost, laboratory and radiology test cost of RIRS group were lower (P = 0.000). However, counting the retreatment cost in the two groups, the total medical expenditure including the overall hospitalization cost, overall laboratory and radiology test cost and post-operative out-patient department (OPD) visit cost was similar between two groups. In conclusion, with similar total medical cost, mPCNL achieved faster stone clearance and lower retreatment rate without major complications, which implied higher cost-effectiveness for the treatment of single renal stone of 2–3 cm in Chinese medical setting. RIRS is also a safe and reliable choice for patients having contraindications or preference against mPCNL.     

Should mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MiniPNL/Miniperc) be the ideal tract for medium-sized renal calculi (15–30 mm)?

Introduction

Reducing the percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) tract size reduces the morbidity associated with the procedure. Prolonged procedure time is a concern. Modification in technique required is to fragment the stone into smaller particles and remove them using the vacuum cleaner effect. This prospective study compares the efficacy and morbidity of reducing the tract size from the standard 24–16.5 Fr for stones sized from 16 to 30 mm.

Methods

123 patients were enrolled in this prospective study and distributed into 2 groups based on the tract size used (group A 16.5/17.5 Fr Miniperc, N = 61 and group B: 22/24 Fr standard PCNL, N = 62). Critical factors assessed were procedure time, fluoroscopy time, blood loss, pain score, stone clearance status and complications.

Results

Both the groups were comparable with respect to age, creatinine and stone size. The blood loss (hemoglobin and PCV drop) was significantly less for group A (p < 0.001). Both the groups were comparable with regards to the pain score (p > 0.05). Nephrostomy was placed in 3 patients in group A and 14 patients in group B (p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in the procedure time amongst the 2 groups. A total of 9 patients (4 in group A and 5 in group B) had residual fragments greater than 3 mm.

Conclusion

The 16.5 Fr Miniperc tract offers lower morbidity in terms of blood loss and maintains stone clearance comparable to larger 24 Fr tract size. It should be the ideal size used for medium sized renal stones.

     

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones following failed extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: different performances and morbidities

The purpose of this study is to summarize the results of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for renal stones following failed extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), and to investigate the effect of previous SWL on the performances and morbidities of subsequent PCNL. Sixty-two patients with a history of failed SWL who underwent PCNL on the same kidney (group 1) were compared to 273 patients who had received PCNL as first treatment choice (group 2). Patient demographics, stone characteristics, operative findings, and complications were documented and compared. Groups 1 and 2 had similar patient demographics and stone characteristics. Mean time to establish access was comparable in both groups (10.5 ± 4.2 vs. 9.6 ± 4.5 min, p = 0.894). Time required to remove stones and total operative time were longer in group 1 (71.5 ± 10.3 vs. 62.3 ± 8.6 min, p = 0.011 and 95.8 ± 12.0 vs. 80.6 ± 13.2 min., p = 0.018, respectively). Group 1 had lower clearance rate compared to group 2 (83.9 vs. 93.4 %, p = 0.021), while postoperative complications were similar in both groups. Scattered stone fragments buried within the tissues made the procedure more difficult for stone fragmenting and extracting, which lead to longer operative time and inferior stone free rate. However, the PCNL procedure was safe and effective in patients with failed SWL. The risk of complications was similar and clearance rate was encouraging.     

Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for a solitary renal pelvis stone larger than 3 cm: a prospective cohort study

To prospectively compare the outcome of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LP) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in patients with a solitary renal pelvis stone larger than 30 mm. We analyzed demographic and perioperative parameters and intermediate outcome in 30 adults who underwent transperitoneal LP for solitary renal pelvis stone larger than 30 mm (Group I) and compared the results with 30 patients who underwent PCNL (Group II). The two groups were matched for age, sex and stone size (Group I 35.3 ± 7.33 mm, Group II 36.6 ± 7.0 mm; P = 0.47). Mean operative time was significantly longer in LP group (120.5 ± 39.94 min versus 98.1 ± 23.28 min; P = 0.01, 95 % CI 5.43–39.23). Stone-free rate after LP was significantly higher than after PCNL (100 % versus 76.7 %; P = 0.01). On the discharge day, no residual stone was found in LP group, and significant residual stone (mean size 9.8 mm, range 7–15 mm) was found in seven patients (23.3 %) in PCNL group. After the ancillary procedures, the stone-free rates were 100 % in LP and 96.6 % in PCNL group at the end of follow-up. The average overall treatment cost was significantly lower in LP (683.9 USD versus 815.9 USD; P < 0.001). Mean postoperative decreases in hemoglobin was similar in both groups. Given adequate laparoscopic experience, for patients with a solitary renal pelvis stone larger than 3 cm, LP can be considered as an appropriate second choice to PCNL. It can be a potentially cost-effective treatment option in terms of one-session stone-free rate and postoperative complications. However, the potential benefits of LP need to be weighed against the more invasive nature of this procedure.     

Randomized prospective trial of tubeless versus conventional minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Purpose

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) without nephrostomy drainage tubes.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 32 eligible patients with kidney stones at our hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to a conventional mPCNL group (ureteric Double-J stents and nephrostomy drainage tubes) or a tubeless mPCNL group (ureteric catheter but no drainage tubes). A single experienced surgeon performed all operations.

Results

At baseline, the two groups had similar age, maximum stone diameter, and gender distribution. There were no significant differences in operation time, presence of postoperative fever, stone clearance, and level of postoperative serum hemoglobin. However, the tubeless mPCNL group had significantly shorter hospital stays (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.032) and significantly less back pain (5 patients vs. 14 patients, p = 0.003) than the conventional mPCNL group.

Conclusions

No significant differences were found between conventional and tubeless mPCNL in safety issues and stone clearance rate. However, patients treated with tubeless mPCNL had shorter hospitalization stays and were less likely to experience back pain.     

Tubeless procedure reduces hospitalization and pain after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: results of a multivariable analysis

The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (t-PCNL) in comparison with standard PCNL (s-PCNL). We retrospectively evaluated 317 consecutive PCNL and compared perioperative results, time of hospitalization and analgesic requirement of t-PCNL (114; 36.0 %) to s-PCNL (203; 64.0 %). The decision to perform a tubeless PCNL was made at the end of the procedures depending on the surgeon’s preference and according to the following inclusion criteria: (a) no serious bleeding or perforation in the collecting system during the procedure; (b) patients with no more than one access; and (c) residual stone burden needing a second-stage nephroscopy. Staghorn stones and anatomic anomalies were not considered as exclusion criteria for t-PCNL. Univariate analyses were conducted with one-way ANOVA, Fisher’s exact test, Pearson’s Chi-square and linear-by-linear association test as appropriate. Stepwise multivariable regression analyses were used to assess the independent correlation between demographics and clinical variables and the clinical outcomes. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of stone-free rate, hemoglobin decrease, blood transfusion and complication rate. Mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the t-PCNL group (3.3 vs. 4.6 days; P < 0.001). Tubeless PCNL was associated with less analgesia requirement (68.4 vs. 86.7 %; P < 0.001) and with lower analgesic dose requirement (1.6 vs. 2.1 mean doses; P = 0.010). Multivariable analyses showed that t-PCNL (P < 0.001), postoperative fever (P < 0.001), transfusions (P < 0.001), operative time (P = 0.002), postoperative hydronephrosis (P = 0.005) and residual fragment dimension (P = 0.024) were independently correlated with duration of hospitalization, while analgesic dose requirement was independently influenced by hemoglobin decrease (P < 0.001), t-PCNL (P = 0.005) and stone number (P = 0.044). Our study confirmed that t-PCNL has similar outcomes to s-PCNL in terms of stone-free rate without increasing complications in selected cases. t-PCNL is a factor independently associated with shorter hospitalization and lower analgesic requirement.     

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of one-shot and telescopic metal dilatation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a randomized controlled trial

Minimizing X-ray exposure during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is challenging. Using the single semirigid dilator, also called “one-shot” or “one-stage” is a good alternative to routine telescopic metal dilators to reduce X-ray exposure. Our aim was to compare the single semirigid one-shot dilator with a telescopic metal dilator in PCNL. The intraoperative status was evaluated in 100 consecutive patients randomly assigned to two equal groups undergoing PCNL either with the one-shot (group A) or telescopic technique (group B). No significant difference in stone burden and location existed between the groups (P > 0.05). The mean age of group A and group B was 44.8 ± 15 and 45.6 ± 14 years, respectively (P = 0.78). The mean operation time was 51.14 ± 40.85 min in group A and 57.00 ± 38.85 min in group B (P = 0.46). The mean X-ray exposure time was 41.2 ± 17 and 48.4 ± 15 s in group A and group B, respectively (P = 0.03). The stone-free rate was 94 % (n = 47) in group A and 84 % (n = 42) in group B (P = 0.10). The mean hemoglobin drop was 1.26 ± 0.09 and 1.44 ± 0.11 g/dl in group A and group B, respectively (P = 0.09). The one-shot technique is feasible, safe, and well tolerated in patients undergoing PCNL. In addition to lack of complications, the method also provides less radiation exposure for urologists and nursing teams.     

The feasibility of regional anesthesia in the percutaneous nephrolithotomy with supracostal approach and its comparison with general anesthesia

There are various approaches for the percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Supracostal approach is a well known technique for doing of it. This approach is being done commonly under general anesthesia (GA). In this retrospective study, we evaluated the feasibility of supracostal PCNL under regional anesthesia (RA) and compared it with the same procedure under GA. Since March 2000 to March 2005, a total of 123 renal stone cases underwent PCNL with supracostal access in our center. GA was selected in 69 cases (56 %) (Group 1), spinal anesthesia (SA) in 45 cases (36.5 %), and epidural anesthesia (EA) in 9 cases (7.5 %) (Group 2). The operative time, success rate, hospital stay, and ensuing complications were compared between group 1 and group 2. There were no significant differences between groups 1 and 2 among surgical parameters, including age, stone area, anesthesia time, and hospitalization time (P > 0.05). There was no difference in the rate of complications or success rate between GA and RA cases (P > 0.05). Overall complete stone free rate, regardless of stone size, in relation to type of anesthesia was as follows: 88.4 % for GA, 88.9 % for EA, and 91.1 % for SA (P > 0.05). Conversion to GA was not needed in any patient with RA. The results showed that the supracostal PCNL with regional anesthesia was feasible but without evident advantages versus general anesthesia in this population, and possible advantages of the procedure in patients with pulmonary co-morbidities have still to be evaluated. The anesthesia related complications of RA were negligible and easily controllable.     

Is mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy a safe alternative to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in pediatric age group in borderline stones? a randomized prospective study

Purpose

The extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) remains the most common first line of treatment for renal stones in the pediatric population. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the outcomes of the ESWL and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL).

Patients and methods

A total of 108 patients younger than 12 years of age with 1–2 cm single renal stone (pelvic or calyceal) were randomized into two groups, each containing 54 patients. Patients in group A were subjected to mini-PCNL using 16.5 Fr percutaneous sheath while those in group B underwent ESWL using Dornier Compact Sigma.

Results

The stone-free rate (SFR) after first session was 88.9% (48 cases) and 55.6% (30 cases) for groups A and B, respectively. The difference is highly statistically significant P = 0.006. Two patients (3.7%) in group A needed 2nd session of PCNL, while 18 patients (33.3%)in group B needed a 2nd session, of theses 18 patients six patients needed a 3rd session of ESWL. After the third session of ESWL and second look PCNL the stone-free rates were 92.59% (50 cases) and 88.89% (48 cases) for groups A and B, respectively, (P = 0.639), which is statistically insignificant. The mean hospital stay and fluoroscopy exposure were significantly longer in the mini-PCNL group. The complication rate in groups A and group B were (22.2%) and (14.8%), respectively, which is statistically insignificant (P = 0.484).

Conclusions

According to Clavien grade of complications mini-PCNL is a safe procedure, and after three session of ESWL, mini-PCNL has a similar stone-free rate with a lower retreatment rate. However, the mini-PCNL has more radiation exposure, and requires a longer hospital stay.

     

A study on comparative outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in prone, supine, and flank positions

Purpose

To compare percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) safety and efficacy in prone, supine, and flank positions.

Methods

A total number of 150 candidates for PCNL were randomly assigned into prone, supine, and flank groups. Patients in groups 1 and 2 underwent fluoroscopy-guided PCNL in prone and supine positions, respectively, while patients in group 3 underwent ultrasonography-guided PCNL in lateral position.

Results

The success rates were 92, 86, and 88 % in prone, supine, and flank positions, respectively (P = 0.7). The mean access duration was 6.9 ± 4.2, 11.1 ± 5.8, and 10.8 ± 4.1 min (P = 0.08), and the mean operation time was 68.7 ± 37.4, 54.2 ± 25.1 and 74.4 ± 26.9 min (P = 0.04) in prone, supine, and flank groups, respectively. Pyelocaliceal perforation occurred in 2 (4 %), 2 (4 %), and 3 (6 %) patients in prone, supine, and flank positions, respectively (P = 1).

Conclusion

We believe that PCNL in both supine and flank positions are as safe and relatively effective as prone position in experienced hands. Preference of the surgeon and proper case selection for each procedure is very important and necessary.     

Reproducibility of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position

To demonstrate that percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position can be safely and effectively reproduced by different surgeons. A multicentre retrospective cross-sectional case study on 317 patients was conducted. The centres enrolled were four hospitals from the Spanish National Health System and provided data for consecutive PCNL from January 2008 to December 2010. The patients were divided into two groups: the Galdakao group (134; operated on by the master PCNL surgeon) and the other surgeons group (183; operated on by the other surgeons). The results of the technique were analysed relative to success and complications. Finally, a multivariate analysis introducing the covariates age, gender, BMI, ASA and type of stone was performed (backward stepwise logistic regression). The univariate analysis did not reveal differences in age, gender and ASA scores (p > 0.05) between the Galdakao group and the other surgeons group. The success rate was 80.6 % in the Galdakao group and 72.7 % in the other surgeons group (p = 0.01), and the complication rate was 16.4 and 26.2 %, respectively (p = 0.03). Complications were categorised based on the Clavien classification, and no differences were discovered between the groups (p = 0.19). The logistic regression confirmed only the surgeon and the stone type as independent predictive variables. PCNL in the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position is feasible for the use by different urologic surgeons. The results depend on the surgeon’s experience, but with specific training and, maybe, selecting the simplest cases at the beginning, it is possible to achieve competitive results.     

The effect of local anesthetic infiltration around nephrostomy tract on postoperative pain control after percutaneous nephrolithotomy

The objective of the study was to investigate the effect of a long acting local anesthetic infiltration around nephrostomy tract on pain control after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Forty-six patients with kidney stones of >2 cm undergoing single access subcostal percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized to levobupivacaine (Group I) and saline (Group II) infiltration groups. Group I patients (n = 23) had 75 mg/30 cc levobupivacaine infiltration around the access site after placement of nephrostomy catheter. Group II patients had 30 cc saline infiltration. Postoperatively the patients were given narcotics on demand. Pain scores were collected using a visual analog scale (VAS) at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 24 h postoperatively. The VAS scores, time to analgesic demand, ambulation, and duration of nephrostomy tube were compared between two groups. The mean age was 44 and 45 years in group I and II patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to demographics, surgery or stone characteristics. Comparison of pain scores at all postoperative time points was not statistically significant between the two groups. Time to first analgesic demand and total narcotic analgesic dose per patient were 1.2 ± 1.05 and 4.04 ± 1.57 h; and 96 and 112 mg for group I and II patients (p = 0.009 and p = 0.41, respectively). Ambulation time and duration of nephrostomy tube were also similar. Infiltration of nephrostomy tract site with levobupivacaine does not have a superior effect compared to saline on postoperative pain control in patients undergoing PCNL.To prolong analgesia, the effect of intermittent tract injections or continuous infusion of local anesthetics for the postoperative maintenance of the local anesthetic effect seems worth to investigate in future studies.     

Nephrostomy in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): does nephrostomy tube size matter? Results from The Global PCNL Study from The Clinical Research Office Endourology Society

Purpose

To explore the relationships between nephrostomy tube (NT) size and outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

Methods

The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) prospectively collected data from consecutive patients treated with PCNL over a 1-year period at 96 participating centers worldwide. This report focuses on the 3,968 patients who received a NT of known size. Preoperative, surgical procedure and outcome data were analyzed according to NT size, dividing patients into two groups, namely small-bore (SB; nephrostomy size ≤ 18 Fr) and large-bore (LB; nephrostomy size > 18 Fr) NT.

Results

Patients who received a LB NT had a significantly lower rate of hemoglobin reduction (3.0 vs. 4.3 g/dL; P < 0.001), overall complications (15.8 vs. 21.4 %; P < 0.001) and a trend toward a lower rate of fever (9.1 vs. 10.7 %). Patients receiving a LB NT conversely had a statistically, though not clinically significant, longer postoperative hospital stay (4.4 vs. 4.2 days; P = 0.027). There were no differences in urinary leakage (0.9 vs. 1.3 %, P = 0.215) or stone-free rates (79.5 vs. 78.1 %, P = 0.281) between the two groups.

Conclusions

LB NTs seem to reduce bleeding and overall complication rate. These findings would suggest that if a NT has to be placed, it should better be a LB one.     

Lower pole stones: prone PCNL versus supine PCNL in the International Cooperation in Endourology (ICE) group experience

Purpose

To assess efficacy and safety of prone- and supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the treatment of lower pole kidney stones.

Methods

Data from patients affected by lower pole kidney stones and treated with PCNL between December 2005 and August 2010 were collected retrospectively by seven referral centres. Variables analysed included patient demographics, clinical and surgical characteristics, stone-free rates (SFR) and complications. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare the differences for SFRs and complication rates between prone- and supine PCNL.

Results

One hundred seventeen patients underwent PCNL (mean stone size: 19.5 mm) for stones harboured only in the lower renal pole (single stone: 53.6 %; multiple stones: 46.4 %). A higher proportion of patients with ASA score ≥ 3 and harbouring multiple lower pole stones were treated with supine PCNL (5.8 vs. 23.1 %; p = 0.0001, and 25 vs. 81.5 %; p = 0.0001, respectively, for prone- and supine PCNL). One-month SFR was 88.9 %; an auxiliary procedure was needed in 6 patients; the 3-month SFR was 90.2 %. There were 9 post-operative major complications (7.7 %). No differences were observed in terms of 1- and 3-month SFRs (90.4 vs. 87.7 %; p = 0.64; 92.3 vs. 89.2 %; p = 0.4) and complication rates (7.6 vs. 7.7 %; p = 0.83) when comparing prone- versus supine PCNL, respectively.

Conclusions

The results confirm the high success rate and relatively low morbidity of modern PCNL for lower pole stones, regardless the position used. Supine PCNL was more frequently offered in case of patients at higher ASA score and in case of multiple lower pole stones.     

Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy is effective and safe in short- and long-term urinary drainage

We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with ureteral catheter or double-J stent in comparison with standard PCNL in our study. We retrospectively evaluated 707 of 1,469 patients with stone area under 800 mm² and only one subcostal nephrostomy access that was underwent PCNL between March 2004 and October 2011 in our clinic. Patients with 14F nephrostomy tube (Malecot or Re-entry catheter), with ureteral stent and with antegrade double-J stent were included into Group 1 (n = 180), Group 2 (n = 148) and Group 3 (n = 120), respectively. The mean hospitalization time of patients in Group 1 was significantly longer. The mean VAS was significantly higher in Group 1. On the other hand the mean fluoroscopy and operation time of patients in Group 2 were significantly shorter in comparison with other groups. Number of patients with postoperative transfusion requirement was significantly higher in Group 1. The number of patients with postoperative narcotic analgesic requirement was also significantly higher in Group 1. The most frequent complication in our study was prolonged drainage. The postoperative complications were seen more frequently in Group 1. Both ureter catheter and double j stent were more comfortable, effective and safe in urinary drainage following PCNL with single sub-costal access. On the other hand, double-J stent has a disadvantage as requirement additional cystoscopy for removal. We suggest ureter catheter or double-J stent to preserve short- and long-term urinary drainage.     

The use of a ureteral access sheath does not improve stone-free rate after ureteroscopy for upper urinary tract stones

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of a ureteral access sheath (UAS) on stone-free (SF) rate after flexible ureteroscopy for upper urinary tract stones.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 280 patients who underwent flexible ureteroscopy (URS) for upper urinary tract stone between 2009 and 2012. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether a UAS was used (n = 157) or not (n = 123). SF rate was evaluated at one and three months after surgery by abdominal imaging. Quantitative and qualitative variables were compared with Student’s t test and χ2 test, respectively. A logistic regression model was used to determine the predictive factors of SF status.

Results

Stone size was similar in both groups (15.1 vs. 13.7 mm, p = 0.21). SF rates at one and 3 months were comparable in UAS and non-UAS groups (76 vs. 78 % and 86 vs. 87 %, p = 0.88 and 0.89, respectively). Complication rates were similar in both groups (12.7 vs. 12.1 %, p = 0.78). In multivariable analysis, stone size was the only predictive factor of SF rate (p = 0.016).

Conclusion

The routine use of a UAS did not improve SF rate in patients undergoing flexible URS for upper urinary tract calculi.     

Factors determining perioperative complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A single center perspective

Objective

To determine factors affecting perioperative complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) at a tertiary care academic center.

A prospective randomized comparison among SWL,PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience

Purpose

To prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of RIRS, SWL and PCNL for lower calyceal stones sized 1–2 cm.

Materials and methods

Patients with a single lower calyceal stone with an evidence of a CT diameter between 1 and 2 cm were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, unblinded, clinical trial study. Patients were randomized into three groups: group A: SWL (194 pts); group B: RIRS (207 pts); group C: PCNL (181 pts). Patients were evaluated with KUB radiography (US for uric acid stones) at day 10 and a CT scan after 3 months. The CONSORT 2010 statement was adhered to where possible. The collected data were analyzed.

Results

The mean stone size was 13.78 mm in group A, 14.82 mm in group B and 15.23 mm in group C (p = 0.34). Group C compared to group B showed longer operative time [72.3 vs. 55.8 min (p = 0.082)], fluoroscopic time [175.6 vs. 31.8 min (p = 0.004)] and hospital stay [3.7 vs. 1.3 days (p = 0.039)]. The overall stone-free rate (SFR) was 61.8% for group A, 82.1% for group B and 87.3% for group C. The re-treatment rate was significantly higher in group A compared to the other two groups, 61.3% (p < 0.05). The auxiliary procedure rate was comparable for groups A and B and lower for group C (p < 0.05). The complication rate was 6.7, 14.5 and 19.3% for groups A, B and C, respectively.

Conclusions

RIRS and PCNL were more effective than SWL to obtain a better SFR and less auxiliary and re-treatment rate in single lower calyceal stone with a CT diameter between 1 and 2 cm. RIRS compared to PCNL offers the best outcome in terms of procedure length, radiation exposure and hospital stay.ISRCTN 55546280.

     

Questioning the wisdom of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective randomized controlled study of early tube removal vs tubeless PCNL

Study Type – Therapy (RCT)
Level of Evidence 1b

OBJECTIVE

To establish the efficacy of early removal of a nephrostomy tube after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), to challenge the wisdom of tubeless PCNL, as we hypothesized that it would result in a shorter hospital stay, comparable benefit and safety, while maintaining the option of check nephroscopy ensuring far superior stone clearance.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 22 patients were prospectively randomized equally into two groups, group 1 (early nephrostomy removal) or group 2 (tubeless) during a 1‐month study period. Inclusion criteria for the study were: a simple stone of <3 cm, no significant bleeding, no perforation, single‐tract access and ‘on‐table’ complete stone clearance. In group 1, a 20 F nephrostomy, 6 F retrograde ureteric catheter and a Foley catheter were used, while in group 2 only a 6 F retrograde ureteric catheter and Foley catheter were placed at the end of the procedure. Computed tomography (CT) with no contrast medium was done on the first morning after surgery before removing all catheters/tubes, and patients discharged subsequently. The variables assessed were stone clearance, hospital stay, analgesic requirement, postoperative complications and auxiliary procedures.

RESULTS

The mean (sd ) stone bulk was similar between the groups, at 2737 (946.9) and 2934.2 (2090.7) µL, respectively. Despite an on‐table complete clearance, clearance assessed by CT was nine of 11 vs eight of 11 in groups 1 and 2, respectively. CT showed a 6 mm stone in one patient in group 1, while the remaining patients had stones of <4 mm. The mean (sd ) analgesic requirement, haemoglobin decrease, urine leak and hospital stay in the two groups were 72.7 (51.8) vs 68.2 (46.2) mg of tramadol (P= 0.25), 1.6 (0.7) vs 1.6 (0.9) g/dL (P= 0.39), 13.9 (6.3) vs 7.1 (14.2) h (P= 0.018) and 72.8 (2.1) vs 70.2 (18.5) h (P= 0.09), respectively. Complications noted were early haematuria in none vs three (P= 0.21), urinoma none vs one, and fever in two vs one, respectively; one patient in group 1 required a check nephroscopy for a residual fragment. Overall clearance including re‐treatment was 10/11 vs eight of 11 (P= 0.009), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Early tube removal after PCNL results in an equivalent analgesic requirement, decrease in haemoglobin and hospital stay as tubeless PCNL. It has a significantly lower incidence of early haematuria, better clearance rates and preserves the option of check nephroscopy. It can be considered as an accepted standard of care, with the preserved advantages of tubeless PCNL.     

Positive stone culture is associated with a higher rate of sepsis after endourological procedures

The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a correlation between urine and/or stone cultures with postoperative sepsis in patients treated for renal and ureteral calculi. Three hundred and twenty-eight consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or ureteroscopy from 2006 to 2009 were identified, all of whom had a stone culture obtained during surgery. All had a preoperative urine culture. Two hundred and seventy-four underwent ureteroscopy and 54 PCNL. All patients had either negative preoperative urine cultures or were given preoperative antibiotics for 1–7 days prior to surgery. Stone fragments were obtained during the procedure and sent for analysis. The primary endpoint was sepsis. Of 328 patients, 3 % (11/328) developed postoperative sepsis. 73 % (8/11) had positive stone cultures, while none had a positive preoperative urine culture. 8 % (8/96) with positive stone cultures and 1 % (3/232) with negative stone cultures developed sepsis (p = 0.003). The stone culture grew the same pathogen as the urine culture obtained on readmission in 64 % (7/11) of the patients, while 9 % (1/11) of preoperative urine cultures correlated with the readmission pathogen (p = 0.02). The pathogen causing infection had a significantly higher correlation with the organism grown on stone culture than the preoperative urine culture. The patients who developed sepsis did so despite preoperative antibiotics, and the pathogen grown on the preoperative urine culture was different from that seen post operatively. These results suggest that stone culture is more informative than preoperative urine culture for determining treatment of postoperative sepsis.