Assessing the Efficacy of Mini-PCNL Versus Standard PCNL for Management of Staghorn Calculi >2cm: A Prospective Study in Peshawar
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61919/jhrr.v4i1.581Keywords:
Staghorn Stones, Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, PCNL, Mini-PCNL, Stone Clearance, Renal Calculi, Minimally Invasive Surgery, Urology, Kidney Stones, Complication RatesAbstract
Background: Staghorn stones pose a significant challenge in urology, given their complex nature and potential for causing substantial renal damage. Traditional management has often involved standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), known for its efficacy in stone clearance but also associated with considerable complication rates. Recent advancements have led to the development of mini-PCNL, aiming to reduce these complications while maintaining high stone clearance rates.
Objective: This study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and outcomes of standard and mini-PCNL in the management of staghorn stones, with a focus on complication rates, stone clearance, and hospital stay durations.
Methods: A prospective study was conducted at the Institute of Kidney Diseases, Hayatabad, Peshawar, involving 162 patients undergoing PCNL for staghorn stones from January 2020 to December 2023. Patients were categorized into standard PCNL (n=69) and mini-PCNL (n=93) groups based on the procedural approach. Pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative data were collected, including patient demographics, stone size and density, operative findings, post-operative complications, and stone clearance rates. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 25.
Results: The mini-PCNL group demonstrated a significantly smaller average stone size (26.8 ± 5.8 mm) compared to the standard PCNL group (32.3 ± 10.3 mm, p=0.037). Single tract use was more prevalent in mini-PCNL (87.1%) than in standard PCNL (71.0%, p=0.016). Stone clearance rates were higher in the mini-PCNL group (87.1%) versus the standard group (73.9%, p=0.041). The average hospital stay was shorter for mini-PCNL patients (2.4 ± 1.0 days) compared to those undergoing standard PCNL (3.0 ± 1.1 days, p=0.030). Complications, including post-operative hematuria requiring transfusion, were more common in the standard PCNL group.
Conclusion: Mini-PCNL offers a safer and more effective alternative to standard PCNL in the management of staghorn stones, with lower complication rates, higher stone clearance rates, and shorter hospital stays. These findings support the adoption of mini-PCNL as a preferred approach for managing complex renal calculi.
Downloads
References
Gao, X., Fang, Z., Lu, C., Shen, R., Dong, H., & Sun, Y. (2020). Management of staghorn stones in special situations. Asian Journal of Urology, 7(2), 130-138.
Terry, R. S., & Preminger, G. M. (2020). Metabolic evaluation and medical management of staghorn calculi. Asian journal of urology, 7(2), 122-129.
Diri, A., & Diri, B. (2018). Management of staghorn renal stones. Renal failure, 40(1), 357-362.
Torricelli, F., & Monga, M. (2020). Staghorn renal stones: what the urologist needs to know. International braz j urol, 46, 927-933.
Alsawi, M., Amer, T., Mariappan, M., Nalagatla, S., Ramsay, A., & Aboumarzouk, O. (2020). Conservative management of staghorn stones. The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 102(4), 243-247.
Ziemba, J. B., & Matlaga, B. R. (2015). Guideline of guidelines: kidney stones. BJU International, 116(2), 184-189.
CHIBBER, P. J. (1993). Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large and staghorn calculi. Journal of endourology, 7(4), 293-295.
Srisubat, A., Potisat, S., Lojanapiwat, B., Setthawong, V., & Laopaiboon, M. (2014). Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, (11).
Chen, Y., Feng, J., Duan, H., Yue, Y., Zhang, C., Deng, T., & Zeng, G. (2019). Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus open surgery for surgical treatment of patients with staghorn stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 14(1), e0206810.
Al-Kohlany, K. M., Shokeir, A. A., Mosbah, A., Mohsen, T., Shoma, A. M., Eraky, I., ... & El-Kappany, H. A. (2005). Treatment of complete staghorn stones: a prospective randomized comparison of open surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The Journal of urology, 173(2), 469-473.
Niwa, N., Matsumoto, K., Ohigashi, T., Komatsuda, A., Katsui, M., Bessyo, H., & Arakawa, T. (2019). Clinical outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery as a primary treatment for staghorn calculi: a single-center experience. Clinical Medicine Insights: Urology, 12, 1179561119854772.
El-Nahas, A. R., Eraky, I., Shokeir, A. A., Shoma, A. M., El-Assmy, A. M., El-Tabey, N. A., ... & El-Kenawy, M. R. (2012). Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treating staghorn stones: 10 years of experience of a tertiary-care centre. Arab Journal of Urology, 10(3), 324-329.
Thapa, B. B., & Niranjan, V. (2020). Mini PCNL over standard PCNL: what makes it better?. The Surgery Journal, 6(01), e19-e23.
Khadgi, S., El-Nahas, A. R., El-Shazly, M., & Al-Terki, A. (2021). Comparison of standard-and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones. Arab Journal of Urology, 19(2), 147-151.
Li, L. Y., Gao, X., Yang, M., Li, J. F., Zhang, H. B., Xu, W. F., & Lin, Z. (2010). Does a smaller tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy contribute to less invasiveness? A prospective comparative study. Urology, 75(1), 56-61.
Assimos, D., Krambeck, A., Miller, N. L., Monga, M., Murad, M. H., Nelson, C. P., ... & Matlaga, B. R. (2016). Surgical management of stones: American urological association/endourological society guideline, PART I. The Journal of urology, 196(4), 1153-1160.
Tefekli, A., Karadag, M. A., Tepeler, K., Sari, E., Berberoglu, Y., Baykal, M., ... & Muslumanoglu, A. Y. (2008). Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard. European urology, 53(1), 184-190.
Khadgi, S., El-Nahas, A. R., Darrad, M., & Al-Terki, A. (2020). Safety and efficacy of a single middle calyx access (MCA) in mini-PCNL. Urolithiasis, 48(6), 541-546.
Kukreja, R., Desai, M., Patel, S., Bapat, S., & Desai, M. (2004). First prize: factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Prospective Study. Journal of endourology, 18(8), 715-722.
Abdelhafez, M. F., Amend, B., Bedke, J., Kruck, S., Nagele, U., Stenzl, A., & Schilling, D. (2013). Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparative study of the management of small and large renal stones. Urology, 81(2), 241-245.
Nagele, U., Horstmann, M., Sievert, K. D., Kuczyk, M. A., Walcher, U., Hennenlotter, J., ... & Anastasiadis, A. G. (2007). A newly designed amplatz sheath decreases intrapelvic irrigation pressure during mini-percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy: an in-vitro pressure-measurement and microscopic study. Journal of endourology, 21(9), 1113-1116.
Zeng, G., Zhao, Z., Wan, S., Mai, Z., Wu, W., Zhong, W., & Yuan, J. (2013). Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for simple and complex renal caliceal stones: a comparative analysis of more than 10,000 cases. Journal of endourology, 27(10), 1203-1208.
Qin, P., Zhang, D., Huang, T., Fang, L., & Cheng, Y. (2022). Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones> 2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International braz j urol, 48, 637-648.
Nagele, U., Schilling, D., Anastasiadis, A. G., Walcher, U., Sievert, K. D., Merseburger, A. S., ... & Stenzl, A. (2008). Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy (MIP). Der Urologe, 47, 1066-1073.
Aron, M., Goel, R., Kesarwani, P. K., Seth, A., & Gupta, N. P. (2004). Upper pole access for complex lower pole renal calculi. BJU international, 94(6), 849-852.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ahmad Nawaz, Muzzamil Sohail, Sulaiman Shah, Himayat Ullah, Muhammad Idrees Khan, Amir Ullah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Public Licensing Terms
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Under this license:
- You are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, including commercial use.
- Attribution must be given to the original author(s) and source in a manner that is reasonable and does not imply endorsement.
- No additional restrictions may be applied that conflict with the terms of this license.
For more details, visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
