Cargando…

Mini PCNL Over Standard PCNL: What Makes it Better?

The incidence of small- and medium-size renal stones is rising. Stone clearance, bleeding, urine leak, and infectious complications are major concerns for urologists. They can choose the best technique from a list of armamentarium available. Minimally invasive approach like percutaneous nephrolithot...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thapa, Bikash Bikram, Niranjan, Vikram
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Thieme Medical Publishers 2020
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7015816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32055686
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1701225
_version_ 1783496858874675200
author Thapa, Bikash Bikram
Niranjan, Vikram
author_facet Thapa, Bikash Bikram
Niranjan, Vikram
author_sort Thapa, Bikash Bikram
collection PubMed
description The incidence of small- and medium-size renal stones is rising. Stone clearance, bleeding, urine leak, and infectious complications are major concerns for urologists. They can choose the best technique from a list of armamentarium available. Minimally invasive approach like percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has significantly influenced renal stone management since 1976. Miniaturization of the instruments innovate more effective and safer alternatives for urolithasis management. The outcome of mini-PCNL is explored and compared with standard PCNL in this review. Original research articles were reviewed using a systematic approach (keyword electronic database search). Duplicates were excluded in each step and 19 original articles out of 156 hits were analyzed. Mini-PCNL has significantly less bleeding complications and hospital stay. There were no significant difference in stone free rate between mini-PCNL and standard PCNL. The stone-free rate and complications rates were less dependent on the technique of puncture, tract dilatation, and energy used to fragment stones. The total operative time became slightly longer in mini-PCNL attributed to the sheath size and stone fragments retrieval. We found that mini-PCNL is as effective as standard PCNL with fewer complications. Stone burden is the key factor responsible for overall stone-free rate. However, the recommendation is limited by quality of study and the sample sizes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7015816
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Thieme Medical Publishers
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70158162020-02-13 Mini PCNL Over Standard PCNL: What Makes it Better? Thapa, Bikash Bikram Niranjan, Vikram Surg J (N Y) The incidence of small- and medium-size renal stones is rising. Stone clearance, bleeding, urine leak, and infectious complications are major concerns for urologists. They can choose the best technique from a list of armamentarium available. Minimally invasive approach like percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has significantly influenced renal stone management since 1976. Miniaturization of the instruments innovate more effective and safer alternatives for urolithasis management. The outcome of mini-PCNL is explored and compared with standard PCNL in this review. Original research articles were reviewed using a systematic approach (keyword electronic database search). Duplicates were excluded in each step and 19 original articles out of 156 hits were analyzed. Mini-PCNL has significantly less bleeding complications and hospital stay. There were no significant difference in stone free rate between mini-PCNL and standard PCNL. The stone-free rate and complications rates were less dependent on the technique of puncture, tract dilatation, and energy used to fragment stones. The total operative time became slightly longer in mini-PCNL attributed to the sheath size and stone fragments retrieval. We found that mini-PCNL is as effective as standard PCNL with fewer complications. Stone burden is the key factor responsible for overall stone-free rate. However, the recommendation is limited by quality of study and the sample sizes. Thieme Medical Publishers 2020-02-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7015816/ /pubmed/32055686 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1701225 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Thapa, Bikash Bikram
Niranjan, Vikram
Mini PCNL Over Standard PCNL: What Makes it Better?
title Mini PCNL Over Standard PCNL: What Makes it Better?
title_full Mini PCNL Over Standard PCNL: What Makes it Better?
title_fullStr Mini PCNL Over Standard PCNL: What Makes it Better?
title_full_unstemmed Mini PCNL Over Standard PCNL: What Makes it Better?
title_short Mini PCNL Over Standard PCNL: What Makes it Better?
title_sort mini pcnl over standard pcnl: what makes it better?
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7015816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32055686
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1701225
work_keys_str_mv AT thapabikashbikram minipcnloverstandardpcnlwhatmakesitbetter
AT niranjanvikram minipcnloverstandardpcnlwhatmakesitbetter