A Comparative Study between Ultra mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy versus Stented Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones in Egypt
Authors: Maged Wael Ali , Gamal Mohamed Ahmed , Radwan Ahmed Ibrahim , Ibrahim Saif Ahmed Mohsen 
Published: July 2024

Background

Nephrolithiasis is the third most common disease of the urinary tract with a 1-year recurrence rate of 7% and 10-year recurrence rate of 50%. Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are different surgeries to treat renal stones. Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (24- 30F) remains the standard procedure for treating large renal calculi. While achieving high SFR, it also has many drawbacks such as bleeding, postoperative pain, and a long recovery period due to its large access tract, so the Ultra mini percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (12-14F) with a smaller tract size came into existence to reduce renal parenchymal injury associated with standard PCNL. ESWL is a minimally invasive intervention with good patient tolerance; it is regarded as the first line treatment for nephrolithiasis &lt; 20 mm in size.

Aim andObjectives

Compare results, safety and outcome of Ultra mini PCNL versus stented extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the management of renal calculi from 10 – 20 mm.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted at Urology department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University. Patients were recruited from the outpatient urology clinic between March 2021 till September 2022. Inclusion criteria included patients between 18 and 60 years, having radioopaque renal stones ranging from 10-20 mm with BMI not exceeding 40. Exclusion criteria were patients who had radiolucent stones, smaller than 10 mm or larger than 20 mm, with congenital renal anomalies or spinal deformity or BMI exceeding 40. Patients with uncorrected bleeding diathesis or pregnant females or untreated UTI were also excluded. After meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria, 90 patients were thoroughly informed about the study, feeling well about participating in it, an informed written consent was taken from them. Patients were randomized to either Ultra-Mini-Percutaneous nephrolithotomy group or stented SWL group via the closed envelope method(each group 45 patients).

Results

Stone free rate was higher in the Ultra-mini-PCNL group compared to the stented ESWL group with no statistically significant difference with P-value = 0.316. As for the need for retreatment was slightly higher in the stented ESWL group compared to the Ultra-mini-PCNL group yet this difference was statistically insignificant with P-value 0.681. No statistical significant difference between both groups regarding post operative complications fever, hematuria and need for blood transfusion respectively. Operative time and hospital stay were significantly higher in the ultra-Mini-PCNL group compared to the stented ESWL group with P-value &lt;0.001 for both.

Conclusion

Both stented ESWL and Ultra-Mini-PCNL are good treatment choices for renal stones less than 2 cm with low complication rates. Denying Ultra-Mini-PCNL from patients with medium sized stones for fear of complications is considered unwarranted. Stone size indices were significant predictor for the need of retreatment. Further studies to compare stone free rate based on stone size in both interventions are needed.