STONE CLEARANCE AND COMPLICATION RATE OF MICRO PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY AND RETROGRADE INTRARENAL SURGERY FOR LOWER POLE RENAL STONE: A RANDOMIZED TRIAL

Authors

  • Kumail Sajjad Department of Urology, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore-Pakistan
  • Maisam Ali Shahid Department of Urology, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore-Pakistan
  • Mazhar Ali Recep Tayyip Erdogan Hospital, Muzaffargarh-Pakistan
  • Khizar Hayat Department of Urology, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore-Pakistan
  • Muhammad Nazir Department of Urology, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore-Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55519/JAMC-S4-11807

Keywords:

PCNL, RIRS, Stone free rate, length of stay, kidney stone disease

Abstract

Background: The use of unhealthy food and a sedentary lifestyle increases daily health problems. Renal stones are one among others. Endourology promises the minimum complications and the highest stone clearance rate. Indications of the two procedures overlap micro-PCNL and RIRS. The objective was to evaluate stone clearance and complication rate of micro-PCNL and RIRS for lower pole renal stones. Methods: The research design of this study was a randomized trial and was done after approval of the ethical review committee. The sampling technique was consecutive sampling at the Urology department. Patients included in the study according to inclusion criteria were 96 in number. Randomization into two groups (RIRS vs micro-PCNL) was done by even odd method. All the procedure was done by a single senior urologist. Results: Their ratio among males and females was 2:1. Mean LOS in the RIRS group was 2.89±0.86 days and in the micro-PCNL group 2.58±0.65 days (p=0.047). The complication rate in the RIRS group was 6.2% and 8.3% in micro-PCNL (p=0.695). Mean post-operative haemoglobin was 12.30±1.07 g/dL among the RIRS group and among the micro-PCNL group it was 11.21±1.08 g/dL (p<0.001). There was an average haemoglobin drop in the micro-PCNL group of 1.09±0.01 g/dL. 75% clearance of stone after one session was achieved in the RIRS group while 79.2% was achieved in the micro-PCNL group (p=0.627). Conclusion: Length of hospital stay (LOS) and stone clearance rate (SFR) were similar in both groups with insignificant statistical differences. There is a need to conduct more studies with a large number of study participants and involving multi-centers.           

Author Biographies

Kumail Sajjad, Department of Urology, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore-Pakistan

 

Maisam Ali Shahid, Department of Urology, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore-Pakistan

 

Mazhar Ali, Recep Tayyip Erdogan Hospital, Muzaffargarh-Pakistan

 

Khizar Hayat, Department of Urology, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore-Pakistan

 

Muhammad Nazir, Department of Urology, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore-Pakistan

 

References

Cebeci OÖ Özkan TA Kocaarslan R. Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery. J Acad Res Med 2015;5(3):85.

Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG. Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence incidence and associated risk factors. Rev Urol 2010;12(2-3):e86–96.

Samad N, Liaqat S, Anwar M, Tehreem K, Sadiq HM. Chemical nature of various types of renal stones in the population of district Multan Pakistan. Pak J Pathol 2017;28(2):56–60.

Ahmad S, Ansari TM, Shad MA. Prevalence of renal calculi; type age and gender specific in southern Punjab Pakistan. Prof Med J 2016;23(04):389–95.

Zanetti SP, Boeri L, Catellani M, Gallioli A, Trinchieri A, Sarica K, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) regular and small sized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in daily practice: European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) Survey. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2016;88(3):212–6.

Wright A, Rukin N, Smith D, De la Rosette J, Somani BK. ‘Mini ultra micro’–nomenclature and cost of these new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques. Ther Adv Urol 2016;8(2):142–6.

Zeng GH, Tao Z, Junhong F, Wei Z, Sixing Y, Kefeng X, et al. Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 1-2 cm lower pole renal calculi: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol Suppl 2017;16(7):e2578.

Sabnis RB, Ganesamoni R, Doshi A, Ganpule AP, Jagtap J, Desai MR. Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of small renal calculi: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 2013;112(3):355–61.

Armagan A, Tepeler A, Silay MS, Ersoz C, Akcay M, Akman T, et al. Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of moderate-size renal calculi. J Endourol 2013;27(2):177–81.

Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam TB, et al. 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 2015;67(4):612–6.

Jiang K, Chen H, Yu X, Chen Z, Ye Z, Yuan H. The “all-seeing needle” micro-PCNL versus flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower calyceal stones of≤ 2 cm. Urolithiasis 2019;47(2):201–6.

Chow SC, Shao J, Wang H, Lokhnygina Y. Sample size calculations in clinical research. CRC press; 2017.

Zanetti SP, Talso M, Palmisano F, Longo F, Gallioli A, Fontana M, et al. Comparison among the available stone treatment techniques from the first European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) Survey: Do we have a Queen?. PLoS One 2018;13(11):e0205159.

Weir CB, Jan A. BMI classification percentile and cut off points. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023.

Atis G, Culpan M, Pelit ES, Canakci C, Ulus I, Gunaydin B, et al. Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in treating 20-40 mm renal stones. Urol J 2017;14(2):2995–9.

Baş O, Dede O, Aydogmus Y, Utangaç M, Yikilmaz TN, Damar E, et al. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in moderately sized pediatric kidney stones. J Endourol 2016;30(7):765–70.

Michel F, Negre T, Baboudjian M, Al-Balushi K, Oliva J, Gondran-Tellier B, et al. Micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) for renal stones outcomes and learning curve. Prog Urol 2021;31(2):91–8.

Gao XS, Liao BH, Chen YT, Feng SJ, Gao R, Luo DY, et al. Different tract sizes of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 2017;31(11):1101–10.

Wang W, Ge Y, Wang Z, Wang L, Li J, Tian Y. Comparing micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in treating 1–2 cm solitary renal stones in pediatric patients younger than 3 years. J Pediatr Urol 2019;15(5):517.e1–517.e6.

He Q, Xiao K, Chen Y, Liao B, Li H, Wang K. Which is the best treatment of pediatric upper urinary tract stones among extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review. BMC Urol 2019;19(1):1–6.

Tsai SH, Chung HJ, Tseng PT, Wu YC, Tu YK, Hsu CW, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of shockwave lithotripsy retrograde intrarenal surgery percutaneous nephrolithotomy and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99(10):e19403.

Gu Z, Yang Y, Ding R, Wang M, Pu J, Chen J. Comparison of retrograde

Additional Files

Published

2024-01-16

Issue

Vol. 35 No. 4 (Suppl 1) (2023): JOURNAL OF AYUB MEDICAL COLLEGE ABBOTTABAD

Section

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Kumail Sajjad, Maisam Ali Shahid, Mazhar Ali, Khizar Hayat, Muhammad Nazir

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad is an OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL which means that all content is FREELY available without charge to all users whether registered with the journal or not. The work published by J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad is licensed and distributed under the creative commons License  CC BY ND Attribution-NoDerivs. Material printed in this journal is OPEN to access, and are FREE for use in academic and research work with proper citation. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad accepts only original material for publication with the understanding that except for abstracts, no part of the data has been published or will be submitted for publication elsewhere before appearing in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. The Editorial Board of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad makes every effort to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of material printed in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. However, conclusions and statements expressed are views of the authors and do not reflect the opinion/policy of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad or the Editorial Board.

USERS are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.

AUTHORS retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means including twitter, scholarly collaboration networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.eu, and social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Scholar and any other professional or academic networking site.