Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Is a Noninferior Modality to Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Management of 20-40mm Renal Calculi: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.


Journal

European urology
ISSN: 1873-7560
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 7512719

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 2021
Historique:
received: 04 05 2020
accepted: 10 09 2020
pubmed: 1 10 2020
medline: 28 9 2021
entrez: 30 9 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

High quality of evidence comparing mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) with standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sPNL) for the treatment of larger-sized renal stones is lacking. To compare the efficacy and safety of mPNL and sPNL for the treatment of 20-40mm renal stones. A parallel, open-label, and noninferior randomized controlled trial was performed at 20 Chinese centers (2016-2019). The inclusion criteria were patients 18-70 yr old, with normal renal function, and 20-40mm renal stones. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy PNL was performed using either 18 F or 24 F percutaneous nephrostomy tracts. The primary outcome was the one-session stone-free rate (SFR). The secondary outcomes included operating time, visual analog pain scale (VAS) score, blood loss, complications as per the Clavien-Dindo grading system, and length of hospitalization. The 1980 intention-to-treat patients were randomized. The mPNL group achieved a noninferior one-session SFR to the sPNL group by the one-side noninferiority test (0.5% [difference], p <  0.001). The transfusion and embolization rates were comparable; however, the sPNL group had a higher hemoglobin drop (5.2 g/l, p <  0.001). The sPNL yielded shorter operating time (-2.2 min, p = 0.008) but a higher VAS score (0.8, p <  0.001). Patients in the sPNL group also had longer hospitalization (0.6 d, p <  0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in fever or urosepsis occurrences. The study's main limitation was that only 18F or 24F tract sizes were used. Mini mPNL achieves noninferior SFR outcomes to sPNL, but with reduced bleeding, less postoperative pain, and shorter hospitalization. We evaluated the surgical outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy using two different sizes of nephrostomy tracts in a large population. We found that the smaller tract might be a sensible alternative for patients with 20-40mm renal stones.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
High quality of evidence comparing mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) with standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sPNL) for the treatment of larger-sized renal stones is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of mPNL and sPNL for the treatment of 20-40mm renal stones.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A parallel, open-label, and noninferior randomized controlled trial was performed at 20 Chinese centers (2016-2019). The inclusion criteria were patients 18-70 yr old, with normal renal function, and 20-40mm renal stones.
INTERVENTION
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy PNL was performed using either 18 F or 24 F percutaneous nephrostomy tracts.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The primary outcome was the one-session stone-free rate (SFR). The secondary outcomes included operating time, visual analog pain scale (VAS) score, blood loss, complications as per the Clavien-Dindo grading system, and length of hospitalization.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
The 1980 intention-to-treat patients were randomized. The mPNL group achieved a noninferior one-session SFR to the sPNL group by the one-side noninferiority test (0.5% [difference], p <  0.001). The transfusion and embolization rates were comparable; however, the sPNL group had a higher hemoglobin drop (5.2 g/l, p <  0.001). The sPNL yielded shorter operating time (-2.2 min, p = 0.008) but a higher VAS score (0.8, p <  0.001). Patients in the sPNL group also had longer hospitalization (0.6 d, p <  0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in fever or urosepsis occurrences. The study's main limitation was that only 18F or 24F tract sizes were used.
CONCLUSIONS
Mini mPNL achieves noninferior SFR outcomes to sPNL, but with reduced bleeding, less postoperative pain, and shorter hospitalization.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We evaluated the surgical outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy using two different sizes of nephrostomy tracts in a large population. We found that the smaller tract might be a sensible alternative for patients with 20-40mm renal stones.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32994063
pii: S0302-2838(20)30718-1
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.026
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

114-121

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Auteurs

Guohua Zeng (G)

Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: gzgyzgh@vip.sina.com.

Chao Cai (C)

Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, China.

Xianzhong Duan (X)

Department of Urology, Baoshan No.2 People's Hospital, Baoshan, China.

Xun Xu (X)

Department of urology, Affiliated Nanhai Hospital, Southern Medical University (People's Hospital of Nanhai District), Foshan, China.

Houping Mao (H)

Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.

Xuedong Li (X)

Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.

Yong Nie (Y)

Department of Urology, Yiling Hospital,Yichang, China.

Jianjun Xie (J)

Department of Urology, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University.

Jiongming Li (J)

Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.

Jun Lu (J)

Department of Urology, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai, China.

Xiaofeng Zou (X)

Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, China.

Jianfeng Mo (J)

Department of Urology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Qingyuan, China.

Chengyang Li (C)

Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.

Jianzhong Li (J)

Department of Urology, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command.

Weiguo Wang (W)

Department of Urology, Jining No.1 People's Hospital, Jining, China.

Yonggang Yu (Y)

Department of Urology, 181st Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, Guilin, China.

Xiang Fei (X)

Department of Urology, ShengJing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.

Xianen Gu (X)

Department of Urology, Chui Yang Liu Hospital Affiliated to Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.

Jianhui Chen (J)

Department of Urology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.

Xiangbo Kong (X)

Department of Urology, China-Japan Union Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun, China.

Jian Pang (J)

Department of Urology, Jiangmen Central Hospital, Affiliated Jiangmen Hospital of Sun Yet-sen University, Jiangmen, China.

Wei Zhu (W)

Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, China.

Zhijian Zhao (Z)

Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, China.

Wenqi Wu (W)

Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, China.

Hongling Sun (H)

Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, China.

Yongda Liu (Y)

Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, China.

Jean de la Rosette (J)

Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, China; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Urology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH