Future of kidney stone management: surgical intervention miniaturization of PCNL: where is the limit?
Journal
Current opinion in urology
ISSN: 1473-6586
Titre abrégé: Curr Opin Urol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9200621
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
3
1
2020
medline:
25
9
2020
entrez:
3
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Miniaturization was the major trend in percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the past 15 years, aiming to lower tract-size-related complication rates while maintaining good stone-free-rates (SFR). Although there is some evidence that 18 Fr Mini-percutaneous lithotomy (PCNL) has comparable efficacy to conventional PCNL and a lower risk of bleeding, it is less clear whether further miniaturization led to an even better safety profile while maintaining good SFR. The present review evaluates the latest results on efficacy, safety, and feasibility of miniaturized techniques 14 Fr or less in PCNL. Recent literature of the last 2 years reported outcomes of different systems from 4.85 to 14 Fr. Most of these studies demonstrated good efficacy when comparing with RIRS or conventional PCNL. Limitations were a decrease in SFR for stone sizes more than 2 cm, a longer operative time and the likelihood of pathologic intrarenal pressure (IRP) with a higher risk of postoperative fever or sepsis. Miniaturization of PCNL is an innovative approach in order to lower complication rates and hospitalization time for therapy of renal stones. Limitations like longer OR time or higher IRP may limit the benefit of super miniaturized systems. Currently, the 18 Fr Mini-PCNL seems to be the most reliable solution for stones up to 25 mm, whereas RIRS remains the first choice in renal stones less than 10 mm.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31895077
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000713
pii: 00042307-202003000-00002
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
107-112Références
Jackman SV, Docimo SG, Cadeddu JA, et al. The ‘mini- perc’ technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 1998; 16:371–374.
Lahme S, Bichler KH, Strohmaier WL, et al. Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stones. Eur Urol 2001; 40:619–624.
Abdelhafez MF, Amend B, Bedke J, et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparative study of the management of small and large renal stones. Urology 2013; 81:241–245.
Knoll T, Wezel F, Michel MS, et al. Do patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? A comparative prospective study. J Endourol 2010; 24:1075–1079.
Cheng F, Yu W, Zhang X, et al. Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones. J Endourol 2010; 24:1579–1582.
Güler A, Erbin A, Ucpinar B, et al. Comparison of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of large kidney stones: a randomized prospective study. Urolithiasis 2019; 47:289–295.
Knoll T. Letter to the Editor: Super-, perfect-, ultra-, micro-, mini-, …: does anybody benefit from miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy? World J Urol 2018; 36:319–320.
Schilling D, Husch T, Bader M, et al. Nomenclature in PCNL or the tower of Babel: a proposal for a uniform terminology. World J Urol 2015; 33:1905–1907.
Tepeler A, Sarica K. Standard, mini, ultra-mini and micro percutaneous nephrolithotomy. What is next? Urolithiasis 2013; 41:367–368.
Ruhayel Y, Tepeler A, Dabestani S, et al. Tract size in miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy. A systematic review from the European association of urology urolithiasis guidelines panel. Eur Urol 2017; 72:220–235.
Zeng G, Wan SP, Zhao Z, et al. Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP): a new concept in technique and instrumentation. BJU Int 2016; 117:655–661.
Zeng G, Zhu W, Liu Y, et al. The new generation super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) system: a step-by-step guide. BJU Int 2017; 120:735–738.
Zeng G, Zhang T, Agrawal M, et al. 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 2018; 122:1034–1040.
Cai C, Liu Y, Zhong W, et al. The clinical application of new generation super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of ≥20 mm renal stones. J Endourol 2019; 33:634–638.
Fan J, Zhang T, Zhu W, et al. The role of super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) in the treatment of symptomatic lower pole renal stones (LPSs) after the failure of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Urolithiasis 2019; 47:297–301.
Liu Y, Alsmadi J, Zhu W, et al. Comparison of super-mini PCNL (SMP) vs. Miniperc for stones larger than 2 cm: a propensity score-matching study. World J Urol 2018; 36:955–961.
Alsmadi J, Fan J, Zhu W, et al. The influence of super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy on renal pelvic pressure in vivo. J Endourol 2018; 32:819–823.
Desai J, Zeng G, Zhao Z, et al. A novel technique of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: introduction and an initial experience for treatment of upper urinary calculi less than 2 cm. Biomed Res Int 2013; 2013:490793.
Gupta S, Das SK, Pal DK. Total tubeless ultra-mini supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a feasibility study. Turk J Urol 2018; 44:323–328.
Pai A, Wai HA, Ali M, et al. Outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery compared with ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of renal calculi. Cent Eur J Urol 2019; 72:169–173.
Zhang H, Hong TY, Li G, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of ultra-mini PCNL, flexible ureteroscopy, and shock wave lithotripsy on the treatment of 1-2 cm lower pole renal calculi. Urol Int 2019; 102:153–159.
Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Seitz M, et al. The ‘all-seeing needle’: initial results of an optical puncture system confirming access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 2011; 59:1054–1059.
Desai MR, Sharma R, Mishra S, et al. Single-step percutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc): the initial clinical report. J Urol 2011; 186:140–145.
Jiang K, Chen H, Yu X, et al. The ‘all-seeing needle’ micro-PCNL versus flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm. Urolithiasis 2019; 47:201–206.
Cepeda M, Amón JH, Mainez JA, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery and micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal lithiasis < 2 cm. Actas Urol Esp 2017; 41:516–521.
Skolarikos A, Gross AJ, Krebs A, et al. Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy for solitary renal stones in the CROES URS global study. J Urol 2015; 194:137–143.
Zanetti SP, Talso M, Palmisano F, 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:e0205159.
Türk C, Skolarikos A, Neisius A et al. EAU guidelines on urolithiasis: European Association of Urology; 2019.
Kiil F. Pressure recordings in the upper urinary tract. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1957; 5:383–388.
Hinman F, Redewill FH. Pyelovenous back flow. J Am Med Assoc 1926; 87:1287–1293.
Boccafoschi C, Lugnani F. Intra-renal reflux. Urol Res 1985; 13:253–258.
Jung HU, Frimodt-Moller PC, Osther PJ, Mortensen J. Pharmacological effect on pyeloureteric dynamics with a clinical perspective: a review of the literature. Urol Res 2006; 34:341–350.
Huusmann S, Wolters M, Schilling D, et al. Training and Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group. Pressure study of two miniaturised amplatz sheaths of 9.5 F and 12 F outer diameter for minimal invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MIP): an ex vivo organ model measurement. Aktuelle Urol 2019; 50:71–75.
Tokas T, Skolarikos A, Herrmann TRW, Nagele U. Pressure matters 2: intrarenal pressure ranges during upper-tract endourological procedures. World J Urol 2019; 37:133–142.
Sabnis RB, Ganesamoni R, Sarpal R. Miniperc: what is its current status? Curr Opin Urol 2012; 22:129–133.
Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol 2011; 25:1131–1135.
Kirac M, Tepeler A, Bozkurt OF, et al. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of smaller than 15 mm. Urolithiasis 2013; 41:241–246.