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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
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 |