Keywords
nephrolithiasis - percutaneous nephrolithotomy - mini-PCNL
Urolithiasis means a calculus anywhere in the urinary tract, whereas nephrolithiasis
refers to a calculus in kidney. There has been increase in incidence and prevalence
of nephrolithiasis globally and is unique to climate and the socioeconomic status.[1]
[2] There is paradigm shift in the management of the nephrolithiasis with the invention
of the minimally invasive endourological procedure. The international guidelines recommend
percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) as the first line of treatment for renal stones
more than 20 mm in size. Whereas for stones of size 10 to 20 mm the treatment options
can be shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), PCNL, or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).[3]
[4] The procedure PCNL has evolved since 1976 and has undergone many modifications and
refinements in the techniques and the instruments to achieve maximum stone clearance
with minimal complications. One of them is miniaturizing the access sheath. Standard
PCNL is done with sheath size of 24 to 30 F, whereas the mini-PCNL/miniperc is done
with sheath size 14 to 20 F.[5] A meta-analysis[6] published in 2015 mentioned that the size of PCNL access sheath matters. Mini-PCNL
is safer and had equal efficacy rate for management of renal stones. We are revisiting
the mini-PCNL, reviewing and comparing its success in management of renal stones.
Methodology
PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Embase were searched for “Mini PCNL” and/or
“Miniperc” and paired with “Outcome” and “Complication.” The search resulted in 156
related articles. The first 67 articles that did not match with the key word and had
other description like ultra-mini and super-mini were excluded. Research titles that
evaluate or compare mini-PCNL over standard PCNL for nephrolithiasis only were selected
for review.
Inclusion Criteria
The inclusion criteria are as follows:
-
▪ Original research article
-
▪ Randomized or nonrandomized comparison between mini-PCNL and standard-PCNL
-
▪ Comparing different techniques of mini-PCNL
-
▪ Outcomes measured in operative time, morbidities, length of hospital stay, and stone-free
rate (SFR)
-
▪ Studies managing renal calyceal and pelvic stones
After excluding the original articles that do not meet the inclusion criteria, 19
articles were selected for review. Ten original articles comparing mini-PCNL with
standard PCN and seven original articles evaluating different techniques of mini-PCNL
were included. The safety of the procedure (mini-PCNL) was compared over standard
PCNL in terms of operative time, drop in hemoglobin, blood transfusion rate, infectious
complications, and length of hospital stay. The efficacy was explored in terms of
the SFR ([Fig. 1]).
Fig. 1 Flowchart for study design-—duplicates in each step were excluded and final original
articles were included for review.
Results
Mini-PCNL Is Safer with Equal Efficacy with Standard PCNL
Jackman performed the first mini-PCNL in an adult patient, using a small access sheath
(13 F) with a miniature instrument (6.9 F/7.2 F ureteroscope or 7.7 F pediatric cystoscope)
in 1997. The result of the very first mini-PCNL in seven adult patients had encouraging
result with SFR of 89%. Miniperc quickens the recovery after PCNL with lesser operative
time (60 ± 19 min), hemoglobin drop (1 ± 0.6 g %), morbidities (4.7%), and lesser
hospital stay (2.8 ± 1 day).[7]
Out of 11 comparative studies done for min-PCNL and standard PCNL, 7 were prospective
nonrandomized, 2 were prospective randomized, and 2 were retrospective studies. A
study published as early as 2006 by Giusti et al[8] publishes retrospective data with a self-explanatory title “Mini-perc? No thank
you!” Since then many studies have compared these two modalities and it is still a
subject of interest till date. The studies were heterogeneous in size of stone, access
sheath, type of endoscopes, type of lithotripsy, and use of PCN tube drain.
One of the largest series of prospective studies by Li et al[9] published comparable SFR mini- and standard PCNL with significantly lesser rate
of blood transfusion in mini-PCNL group (1.1% vs. 6.9%). He failed to demonstrate
reduced invasiveness of the smaller tract size of mini-PCNL in molecular level and
the complication rates were comparable. A higher rate of tubeless procedure (p < 0.001), lesser hospital stay (3.2 ± 0.8 vs. 4.8 ± 0.6 days, p ≤ 0.001) was added to the advantage of reduced drop in hemoglobin (0.8 ± 0.9 vs.
1.3 ± 0.4 g, p = 0.01) by Mishra et al.[10] Similar result was obtained by other prospective randomized studies with a twice
larger sample size.[11]
[12] The tubeless PCNL was done ranging from 50 to 95% of the sample size in mini-PCNL.
There was no statistically significant difference in total operative time between
mini-PCNL and standard PCNL (mini-PCNL 24–155 minutes and standard PCNL 25–103 minutes).
The reported SFR for stone burden 10 to 30 mm was as high as 96% in mini-PCNL and
100% in standard PCNL ([Table 1]).
Table 1
Comparison of mini-PCNL versus standard PCNL
|
Studies, Year
|
Number
N = mPCNL vs. sPCNL
|
Stone size
(mm)
|
Sheath size (F)
|
Operative time (minute)
|
Drop in Hb (g/dL)
|
Hospital stay (days)
|
Tubeless procedure
|
Intraoperative complications (%)
|
SFR (%)
|
Analgesic use
|
Level of evidence
|
Quality of study[*]
|
|
Giusti et al[8]
2006
Prospective
|
40 vs. 67
|
28 vs. 31
|
13 vs. 30
|
155.5 ± 32.9
106.6 ± 24.4
|
4.49 ± 3.10 6.31 ± 4.29
|
3.05 ± 1.69 vs. 5.07 ± 2.15
|
14 vs. 13
|
NA
|
77.4 vs. 94
|
5.53 ± 1.14 vs.
6.36 ± 1.67
|
3b
|
6
|
|
P value- NA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Li et al[9]
2010
Prospective
|
93 vs. 72
|
28.6 vs.
30.2
|
14–18 vs. 26
|
87.6 vs. 64.5
|
8.8 vs. 16.3
|
6.3 vs. 6.3
|
NA
|
NS
|
83.9 vs. 87.5
|
NA
|
3b
|
6
|
|
P value
|
|
0.223
|
|
0.006
|
0.002
|
0.94
|
NA
|
NS
|
0.25
|
NA
|
|
|
|
Knoll et al[15]
2010
Prospective
|
25 vs. 25
|
18 ± 8 vs. 23 ± 9
|
18 vs. 26
|
48 ± 17 vs. 57 ± 22
|
NA
|
3.8 ± 28 s 6.9 ± 3.5
|
All tubeless
|
12 vs. 20
|
96% vs. 92%
|
3 ± 3 vs. 4 ± 3
|
3b
|
6
|
|
P value
|
|
0.042
|
|
NS
|
NA
|
0.021
|
|
NS
|
NS
|
0.04
|
|
|
|
Cheng et al,[18] 2010
RCT
|
72 vs. 115
|
All types
|
16 vs. 24
|
90–135
vs.
77–119
|
0.53 ± 0.79
vs.
0.97 ± 1.42
|
7.3 vs. 7.5
|
NA
|
No significant difference
|
70–90
|
88.7 ± 40.6 Vs. 94.3 ± 37.2
|
3b
|
7
|
|
P value
|
|
>0.05
|
|
<0.05
|
<0.05
|
>0.05
|
NA
|
>0.05
|
NS
|
>0.05
|
|
|
|
Zhong et al[24]
2011
RCT
|
29 second 25
|
117 vs. 108 mm3
|
16 vs. 25
|
116 vs. 103
|
3.2 vs. 3.5
|
9.8 vs. 7.1
|
NA
|
37.9 vs. 52
|
89 vs. 68
|
NA
|
2b
|
7
|
|
P value
|
|
NS
|
|
0.052
|
0.09
|
0,07
|
NA
|
0.3
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
|
Mishra et al,[10] 2011
Prospective study
|
27 vs. 28
|
14.7 ± 0.3 vs. 14.9 ± 0.6
|
18.2 ± 2 vs. 26.8 ± 2
|
45.2 ± 12.6 vs. 31 ± 16.6
|
0.8 ± 0.9 vs. 1.3 ± 0.4
|
3.2 ± 0.8 vs. 4.8 ± 0.6
|
21 vs. 4
|
3 vs. 10
|
96 vs. 100
|
55.4 ± 50 vs. 70.2 ± 52
|
3b
|
7
|
|
P value
|
|
0.8
|
|
0.0008
|
0.01
|
0.001
|
0.001
|
NS
|
NS
|
NS
|
|
|
|
Lange [13]
, 2017
|
29 vs. 27
|
10–35
|
16.5 vs. 30
|
NA
|
0.02
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
3b
|
6
|
|
P value
|
|
|
|
NS
|
0.02
|
NS
|
NA
|
NS
|
NS
|
NA
|
|
|
|
Elsheemy et al.[14]
2018 Retrospective
|
378 vs. 151
|
37.7 ± 2.21 vs. 37.7 ± 2.43
|
18 vs. 30
|
68.6 ± 29.09 vs. 60.49 ± 11.38
|
Blood transfusion 3.7% vs. 7.9%
|
2.43 ± 1.46 vs. 4.29 ± 1.28
|
248 vs. 7
|
30 vs. 31 (7.9% vs. 20.5%)
|
First session 86.8% vs. 90.7%
|
NA
|
3b
|
6
|
|
P value
|
|
0.3
|
|
0.4
|
0.04
|
<0.001
|
<0.0001
|
<0.001
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
|
Kukreja et al,[12] 2018
Prospective
|
61 vs. 62
|
20.6 ± 3.47 vs.
21.5 ± 3.53
|
16.5/17.5 vs. 22/24
|
25.46 ± 11.9 vs. 24.68 ± 12.45
|
0.87 ± 0.72
vs.
1.48 ± 0.83
|
NA
|
58 vs. 48
|
NA
|
93 vs. 91.9
|
0.3 ± 0.54 vs. 0.43 ± 0.65
|
3b
|
7
|
|
P value
|
|
0.1
|
|
0.3
|
<0.001
|
NA
|
0.01
|
|
NS
|
NS
|
|
|
|
Güler A et al[25] 2019
RCT
|
46 vs. 61
|
>2 0
|
|
∓
|
∓
|
∓
|
∓
|
∓
|
76.5% vs. 71.7%,
|
NA
|
2b
|
7
|
|
P value
|
|
|
|
0.012
|
NA
|
0.01
|
NA
|
0.31
|
NS
|
NA
|
|
|
Abbreviations: SFR, stone-free rate; NS, not significant; NA, not available.
* Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (score 0– 9).
Complex stone burden with stone size of 10 to 35 mm can be effectively managed with
less blood loss in mini-PCNL technique.[7]
[13] Elsheemy et al[14] managed all type of stones (staghorn, multiple calyceal, simple) using either mini-PCNL
(378) or standard-PCNL (151). Mini-PCNL had longer operative time (68.6 ± 29.09 vs.
60.49 ± 11.38 min; p = 0.434); shorter hospital stay (2.43 ± 1.46 vs. 4.29 ± 1.28 days), and higher rate
of tubeless PCNL (75.1% vs. 4.6%). Complications were significantly higher in standard
PCNL (7.9% vs. 20.5%; p < 0.001) with higher rate of blood transfusion (7.9% vs. 3.7%
with p = 0.041). Complex stone burden required multiple tracts or multiple session of PCNL.[14]
[15] Mini-PCNL in complex stone burden had lesser overall SFR in mini-PCNL (86.8% in
the first session and 89.9% after the second session) than the standard PCNL (90.7%
in the first and 96% after the second session).[14] Most of the studies found no significant difference in postoperative complication
rate and analgesic use between two procedures ([Table 1]). Postoperative pain and fever, bleeding, and urine leak were common complications
in both group. Tubeless mini-PCNL causes significantly less postoperative pain and
less pain medication use.[8]
[12]
[15] The overall complication rate after mini-PCNL (n = 1,000) was reported to be 20.1%, out of which 7.4% were Clavien grade I, 8.8% were
grade II, and 3.5% were grade III complications, but no grade IV or V complications
were found.[16]
Stone Burden as Key Factor of Safety and Efficacy
A total of 10,000 mini-PCNL was performed between 1992 and 2011 by Zeng et al,[17] where 5,761 (41.2%) were simple calyceal stones and 8,223 (58.8%) were complex calyceal
stones. The stone burden was lower in simple calyceal stones, 1018.6 mm vs. 1763.0 mm
(p < 0.05). Patients with simple stones had significantly shorter operative time, less
hemoglobin drop, and higher SFR (77.6% vs. 66.4%) after a single session of mini-PCNL
(p < 0.05). The differences diminished after relook and/or auxiliary procedures (86.7%
vs. 86.1%, P > 0.05). The complication rate (17.9% vs. 19.0%) and blood transfusion
rate (grade II) (2.2% vs. 3.2%) were similar in both groups (P > 0.05). Renal vascular
embolizations (grade III) were significantly higher with complex stone burden (p < 0.05). SFR was less with multiple stones (p = 0.018) and large stone burden > 2 cm2 (p = 0.026).[14]
[18] In comparison to standard PNCL, mini-PCNL was more efficient to manage multiple
caliceal stones (SFR 85.2% vs. 70%, p < 0.05) and equally efficient for simple renal pelvis stone and staghorn stones adjusted
for number of tract and PCNL session.[18]
Role of Instrument and Equipment
Comparison of mini-PCNL and standard PCNL were not adjusted for technical aspect of
procedure (image guidance for puncture, type of dilator, size of sheath, type of lithotripter,
etc.). Few studies had compared role of technical factors in outcome of mini-PCNL
only. Arslan[1] found no significant difference in SFR (82.1% vs. 79.5%, p = 0.285) in between single step metal coaxial dilator and serial Amplatz dilator
during mini-PCNL. The rate of perioperative complication was similar. Though the fluoroscopy
time and the total hospital stay were longer (p < 0.001) in metal sheath group it was more cost effective than Amplatz sheath group.
Mini-PCNL had the same safety and efficacy in management of low stone burden (STONE
scores 5–6) among all three approaches of calyceal puncture (viz. fluoroscopy vs.
ultrasound vs. combined fluoroscopy and ultrasound). Fluoroscopic guidance and combined
(fluoroscopic and ultrasound) guidance resulted in higher SFR (89.4% vs. 90.2% vs.
69.8%, p = 0.002) than ultrasound guidance only in renal stone with complex burden (stone
scores 7–8). Combined guidance had significantly longer access time (p = 0.003) and no difference in complication rate and hospital stay.[19]
The operative time, drop in mean hemoglobin, complication rates, postoperative pain,
and SFR were similar for type of energy used for lithotripsy (p > 0.2). Similar safety
and efficacy were noted in management of comparable two groups of renal stone using
laser and ultrasound by mini-PCNL procedure. The SFR was higher in laser lithotripsy
group than ultrasound group, though it was not statistically significant (81.8% vs.
68.2% and p = 0.296).[20] Stone migration was lower and fragment removal was effective with laser lithotripsy.
Action required for stone fragments retrieval was less in laser lithotripsy group
than pneumatic lithotripsy (10% vs. 37%, p = 0.002)[21]
Discussion
Since its first use in 1997 mini-PCNL has been an increasingly popular alternative
for the management of the renal stones due to its higher safety profiles. Lahme recommended
mini-PCNL to treat all kinds of upper urinary tract calculi greater than 10 mm in
diameter and it is regarded as a treatment alternative to flexible ureterorenoscopic
lithotripsy (URSL), shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), and conventional PCNL.[22] For complete stone clearance the use of auxiliary procedure like second PCNL, SWL,
and URSL are often necessary.
Mini-PCNL had significant advantage over standard PCNL in terms of reduced bleeding,
leading to a higher chance of tubeless procedure (75–80%) and reduced hospital stay
(2.43–4.5 days) ([Table 1]). The longer operative time was attributed to stone burden and type of energy used
for lithotripsy. Laser lithotripsy is efficient but takes longer time than pneumatic
lithotripsy (p < 0.001).[20]
[21]
The overall complication doesn't differ between mini-PCNL and standard PCNL. Untreated
preoperative urinary tract infection, high perfusion pressure, longer operative time,
toxin absorption and pelvicalyceal system perforation, and poor drainage of the pelvicalyceal
system after surgery are responsible for increase in complications.[22] The nephrostomy tube placed at the end of the procedure has several advantages.
It allows uninterrupted drainage of urine from kidney, tamponade effect on the renal
access tract, and allows for a “second look” surgery if needed. Tubeless PCNL had
advantage for less postoperative pain and early discharge.[23]
Conclusion
Mini-PCNL is as effective as standard PCNL with less blood loss in small and medium
size stone (10–30 mm). Stone burden is the key denominators for optimal stone free
rate. Even a complex stone burden is amenable to mini-PCNL. Most of the comparative
studies have small sample size and are nonrandomized. The effect of patient position
in outcome is inconspicuous. The comparisons were not adjusted for different technical
details like puncture guidance, type of dilators, tract size, and lithotripsy. Multicenter
randomized studies with subgroup analysis can draw more robust evidence in the field.
