BMC Urology (Jun 2020)

A comparison among PCNL, Miniperc and Ultraminiperc for lower calyceal stones between 1 and 2 cm: a prospective, comparative, multicenter and randomised study

  • Giorgio Bozzini,
  • Tahsin Batuhan Aydogan,
  • Alexander Müller,
  • Maria Chiara Sighinolfi,
  • Umberto Besana,
  • Alberto Calori,
  • Berti Lorenzo,
  • Alexander Govorov,
  • Dmitry Y. Pushkar,
  • Giovannalberto Pini,
  • Antonio Luigi Pastore,
  • Javier Romero-Otero,
  • Bernardo Rocco,
  • Carlo Buizza

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00636-z
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 20, no. 1
pp. 1 – 6

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Conventional Percutaneous Lithotripsy (PCNL) has been an effective, successful and easy approach for especially > 1 cm sized calyceal stones however risks of complications and nephron loss are inevitable. Our aim is to compare the efficacy and safety of PCNL, MiniPerc (MP) and UltraMiniPerc (UMP) for lower calyceal stones between 1 and 2 cm with a multicenter prospective randomized study. Methods Between January 2015 and June 2018, 132 consecutive patients with single lower calyceal stone were enrolled. Patients were randomized in three groups; A: PCNL; B: MP; C: UMP. 44 patients for the Group A, 47 for Group B and 41 for Group C. Exclusion criterias were the presence of coagulation impairments, age of 75, presence of infection or serious comorbidities. Patients were controlled with computerized tomography scan after 3 months. A negative CT or an asymptomatic patient with stone fragments < 3 mm size were the criteria to assess the stone-free status. Patient characteristics, stone free rates (SFR) s, complications and re-treatment rates were analyzed. Results The mean stone size were 16.38, 16.82 and 15.23 mm respectively in Group A, B and C(p = 0.34). The overall SFR was significantly higher in Group A (86.3%) and B (82.9%) as compared to Group C (78%)(p < 0.05). The re-treatment rate was significantly higher in Group C (12.1%) and complication rates was higher in Group A (13.6%) as compared to others(p < 0.05). The hospitalization was significantly shorter in Group C compared to Group A (p = 0.04). Conclusions PCNL and MP showed higher efficacy than UMP to obtain a better SFR. Auxiliary and re-treatment rates were higher in UMP. On the other hand for such this kind of stones PCNL had more complications. Overall evaluation favors MP as a better indication in stones 1–2 cm size.

Keywords