Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The “all-seeing needle” micro-PCNL versus flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objectives of the study are to compare the safety and efficacy of “all-seeing needle” optical puncture system micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (micro-PCNL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) for the treatment of lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm and to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each. 116 patients in total with lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm were randomly divided into two equal groups, “all-seeing needle” optical puncture system micro-PCNL and FURS. In both groups, holmium laser was utilized for lithotripsy. The perioperative parameters were compared between the two groups. Compared to the “all-seeing needle” micro-PCNL group, the mean operative time was significantly longer in the FURS group (P = 0.000). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to mean hemoglobin reduction (P = 0.087), complications (P = 0.731) and LOS (P = 0.856). The overall SFR of the “all-seeing needle” micro-PCNL group and FURS group was 84.5% (49/58) and 79.3% (46/58), respectively, without any significant difference between the groups (P = 0.469). For treating lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm, the “all-seeing needle” micro-PCNL group had shorter operative time than FURS, while no significant differences between the two groups with respect to mean hemoglobin reduction, complications, LOS and SFR were found.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69(3):475–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, Denstedt JD, Grasso M, Gutierrez-Aceves J, Kahn RI, Leveillee RJ, Lingeman JE, Macaluso JN Jr, Munch LC, Nakada SY, Newman RC, Pearle MS, Preminger GM, Teichman J, Woods JR (2001) Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol 166(6):2072–2080

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Obek C, Onal B, Kantay K, Kalkan M, Yalçin V, Oner A, Solok V, N. T (2001) The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for isolated lower pole calculi compared with isolated middle and upper caliceal calculi. J Urol 166(6):2081–2084

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ganpule AP, Vijayakumar M, Malpani A, Desai MR (2016) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) a critical review. Int J Surg 36(Pt D):660–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Seitz C, Desai M, Hacker A, Hakenberg OW, Liatsikos E, Nagele U, Tolley D (2012) Incidence, prevention, and management of complications following percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Eur Urol 61(1):146–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. El-Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ (2012) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10–20 mm. BJU international 110(6):898–902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Seitz M, Sharma R, Stief CG, Desai M (2011) The “all-seeing needle”: initial results of an optical puncture system confirming access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 59(6):1054–1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sabnis RB, Ganesamoni R, Doshi A, Ganpule AP, Jagtap J, Desai MR (2013) Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the management of small renal calculi: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 112(3):355–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kandemir A, Guven S, Balasar M, Sonmez MG, Taskapu H, Gurbuz R (2017) A prospective randomized comparison of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower pole kidney stones. World J Urol 35(11):1771–1776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Alsyouf M, Arenas JL, Smith JC, Myklak K, Faaborg D, Jang M, Olgin G, Lehrman E, Baldwin DD (2016) Direct endoscopic visualization combined with ultrasound guided access during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a feasibility study and comparison to a conventional cohort. J Urol 196(1):227–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Saad KSM, Youssif ME, Hamdy SAIN., Fahmy A, El Din Hanno AG, El-Nahas AR (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for large renal stones in pediatric patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Urol 194(6):1716–1720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M (2014) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 24(11):CD007044

    Google Scholar 

  13. De SAR, Kim FJ, Zargar H, Laydner H, Balsamo R, Torricelli FC, Di Palma C, Molina WR, Monga M, De Sio M (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67(1):125–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pan J, Chen Q, Xue W, Chen Y, Xia L, Chen H, Huang Y (2013) RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2–3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting. Urolithiasis 41(1):73–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kiremit MC, Guven S, Sarica K, Ozturk A, Buldu I, Kafkasli A, Balasar M, Istanbulluoglu O, Horuz R, Cetinel CA, Kandemir A, Albayrak S (2015) Contemporary management of medium-sized (10–20 mm) renal stones: a retrospective multicenter observational study. J Endourol 29(7):838–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ozturk U, Sener NC, Goktug HNG, Nalbant I, Gucuk A, Imamoglu MA (2013) Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, shock wave lithotripsy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi 10–20 mm. Urol Int 91(3):345–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaynar M, Sumer A, Salvarci A, Tekinarslan E, Cenker A, Istanbulluoglu MO (2013) Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) in a two-year-old with the “all-seeing needle”. Urol Int 91(2):239–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sabnis RB, Ganesamoni R, Sarpal R (2012) Miniperc: what is its current status? Curr Opin Urol 22(2):129–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y, Can CE, Unsal A (2011) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol 25(7):1131–1135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kirac M, Bozkurt OF, Tunc L, Guneri C, Unsal A, Biri H (2013) Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of smaller than 15 mm. Urolithiasis 41(3):241–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hyams E, Munver R, Bird V, Uberoi J, Shah O (2010) Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2 to 3 cm: a multi-institutional experience. J Endourol 24(10):1583–1588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Das MK, Jha SK (2015) A prospective randomized comparison between shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower caliceal stones ≤ 2 cm: a single-center experience. J Endourol 29(5):575–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mishra SSR, Garg C, Kurien A, Sabnis R, Desai M (2011) Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int 108(6):896–899

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Landman J, Lee DI, Lee C, Monga M (2003) Evaluation of overall costs of currently available small flexible ureteroscopes. Urology 62(2):218–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Najib Isse Dirie for his language modification as a native speaker.

Funding

This study was funded by the Hubei Province Health and Family Planning Scientific Research Project (Grant Number WJ2017M257) and the Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province of China (Grant Number 2017CFB516, 2017CFB638).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China

    Kehua Jiang, Xiao Yu, Zhiqiang Chen, Zhangqun Ye & Huixing Yuan

  2. Department of Urology, The Central Hospital of Enshi Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi, Hubei, China

    Kehua Jiang & Hongbo Chen

Authors
  1. Kehua Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hongbo Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiao Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhiqiang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhangqun Ye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Huixing Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huixing Yuan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that no conflict of interests exists.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, K., Chen, H., Yu, X. et al. The “all-seeing needle” micro-PCNL versus flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm. Urolithiasis 47, 201–206 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1049-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1049-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation