Ultramini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of 10-30 mm calculi: a randomized controlled trial.

The surgical management of renal stones 10-30 mm is usually performed with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Standard form of percutaneous nephrolithotomy has paved the way for miniaturized PCNL in many centres. We wanted to evaluate the efficacy, safety and the cost-effectiveness of ultramini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP) versus RIRS in the treatment of renal stones with stone burden 10-30 mm. Patients with renal stone burden 10-30 mm were prospectively randomized into either UMP or RIRS. The demographic data, stone characteristic, operative time and cost of the equipment were recorded. The stone free status, analgesic requirement, deterioration of the renal function and hemoglobin and the postoperative complications as per Clavein-Dindo grade were recorded. One hundred and fifty patients met inclusion criteria. Out of these 98 underwent UMP and 46 RIRS. Six withdrew the consent before the procedure. Mean stone size was comparable in either of the groups. Mean laser time and stone extraction time was significantly less for UMP compared to RIRS (41.17 min versus 73.58 min p < 0.0001). Mean consumable costs in the UMP group were considerably less at US$45.73 compared to the RIRS group at $423.11 (p < 0.0001). The stone free rates at 1 month of follow-up were 100% for UMP group and 73% for RIRS group. There were insignificant changes to mean hemoglobin and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in all patients and the average length of the stay was similar in both the groups. The postoperative complications revealed Grade I and II rate of 10% in the UMP group and 35% in the RIRS group, respectively. We concluded that UMP to be safe, effective and more economical to the RIRS for renal stones up to 3 cm in size.Trial registered with ISRCTN registry ID ISRCTN20935105, Retrospective.

Classification and standardized reporting of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) Consensus Statements.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to reach a consensus in the classification and standardized reporting for the different types of PCNLs. METHODS: The RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology was used to reach a consensus. Thirty-two statements were formulated reviewing the literature on guidelines and consensus on PCNLs, and included procedure specific details, outcome measurements and a classification for PCNLs. Experts were invited to two rounds of input, the first enabled independent modifications of the proposed statements and provided the option to add statements. The second round facilitated scoring of all statements. Each statement was discussed in the third round to decide which statements to include. Any suggestion or disagreement was debated and discussed to reach a consensual agreement. RESULTS: Twenty-five recommendations were identified to provide standardized reporting of procedure and outcomes. Consensual scoring above 80% were strongly agreed upon by the panel. The top treatment related outcomes were size of sheath used (99.1%) and position for PCNL (93.5%). The highest ranked Outcome Measures included definition of postoperative hospital length of stay (94.4%) and estimated blood loss (93.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The consensus statements will be useful to clarify operative technique, in the design of clinical trials and standardized reporting, and presentation of results to compare outcomes of different types of PCNLs.

European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis and International Alliance of Urolithiasis Joint Consensus on Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

CONTEXT: Although percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been performed for decades and has gone through many refinements, there are still concerns regarding its more widespread utilization because of the long learning curve and the potential risk of severe complications. Many technical details are not included in the guidelines because of their nature and research protocol. OBJECTIVE: To achieve an expert consensus viewpoint on PCNL indications, preoperative patient preparation, surgical strategy, management and prevention of severe complications, postoperative management, and follow-up. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An international panel of experts from the Urolithiasis Section of the European Association of Urology, International Alliance of Urolithiasis, and other urology associations was enrolled, and a prospectively conducted study, incorporating literature review, discussion on research gaps (RGs), and questionnaires and following data analysis, was performed to reach a consensus on PCNL. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The expert panel consisted of 36 specialists in PCNL from 20 countries all around the world. A consensus on PCNL was developed. The expert panel was not as large as expected, and the discussion on RGs did not bring in more supportive evidence in the present consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate preoperative preparation, especially elimination of urinary tract infection prior to PCNL, accurate puncture with guidance of fluoroscopy and/or ultrasonography or a combination, keeping a low intrarenal pressure, and shortening of operation time during PCNL are important technical requirements to ensure safety and efficiency in PCNL. PATIENT SUMMARY: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been a well-established procedure for the management of upper urinary tract stones. However, according to an expert panel consensus, core technical aspects, as well as the urologist's experience, are critical to the safety and effectiveness of PCNL.

Mini Percutaneous Kidney Stone Removal: Applicable Technologies.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) remains the treatment of choice for large and complex renal stones. The technological advances over the past several decades gave birth to different varieties of minimally invasive PCNLs, including the mini-PCNL, ultra-mini PCNL, super mini-PCNL, and micro-PCNL, with indications being extended to stones even larger than 20 mm. This article provides an update of all these available techniques of miniaturized PCNL along with its anatomic and physiologic impact. This should assist urologists in providing a personalized approach to the patient based on various patient- and stone-related factors to provide the best of all available technology for treatment.

Ultra-mini PNL (UMP): Material, indications, technique, advantages and results.

Stone disease has afflicted mankind since centuries; records from ancient civilisations of India and Egypt have shown stones in human bodies. The scientific mind of humans has always made smart endeavours to remove the kidney stones. From large instruments made like the beaks of different animals and birds in 600 BC (Indian civilisation) to extremely sophisticated and miniaturised endoscopic intruments of today the human race has travelled a long way. The theme has always been to remove the stones with minimal morbidity and mortality and with minimum pain to the patient. The article takes you through the journey of instruments used in 600 BC until today. The story of instrumentation is a symbiosis of the medical minds along with engineering advances. The story of miniaturisation could not have moved further without the development of lasers, fiberoptics and sophisticated cameras. As the field stands today, we remove more complex stones by larger endoscopic intervention and smaller stones by miniaturised instruments. The article discusses all the merits and shortcomings of various techniques: from open surgery to standard PCNL to Mini PCNL to Ultra- Mini PCNL to Micro-PCNL.

Prospective outcomes of 11-13Ch. ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): A consecutive cohort study.

Ultra mini PCNL (UMP) has been described as a less invasive technique of PCNL for the treatment of small to medium sized stones in attempt to reduce the surgical morbidity. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate prospectively the outcomes of UMP. METHODS: Single surgeon prospective concurrent cohort study of UMP in India. Effectiveness was assessed by stone-free rates, operative time, complications including transfusion, sepsis rates, length of stay and analgesic requirements. RESULTS: In 2013, data on 98 consecutive patients who underwent UMP was collected prospectively. Mean stone size (±SD)was 15.85 ± 4.53mm. The mean Hounsfield unit (HU) was 1105 ± 165HU. Access to the kidney was from the upper pole (8), interpolar (36) and lower pole(55) with no instances of failed access. Mean operating time was 54 minutes (range 28-120 minutes). The mean change in haemoglobin was -0.81g/dl and mean change in creatinine was 0.05mg/dl. No patients were transfused or suffered acute kidney injury. There were fiveClavien-Dindo complications (Grade I x4, IIIb x 1) with the most serious being a perinephric collection requiring intervention. Post-operative oral analgesia was sufficient in 89 patients (91%) with 9 patients (9%) requiring IM or IV analgesia. Median length of stay was 30 hours (IQR 10 hours). 13 patientshad nephrostomy drainage. 8 patients required a stent for one week. Intraoperatively, 98% of patients were stone free on fluoroscopy, which was 76% on day 1 post op ultrasound and 83% on CT at 1 month. Stone free was the absence of detectable calculi. CONCLUSIONS: UMP for 10-20mm stones appears to be effective and safe with few complications and a short length of stay. Further multicentre studies are required but if confirmed, UMP may be a valuable addition to the armamentarium of the endourologist.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: technique.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is considered to be the first line of treatment for large renal stones. Though PCNL comes with higher morbidity, its efficacy is unbeaten by other minimally invasive modalities. However, potential complications, such as bleeding, occur. Improved skills and modifications of the procedure may reduce the probability of adverse outcomes. This article discusses the current trends and standards in PCNL technique with special focus on all important steps as positioning, access, instruments, dilation, disintegration, and exit, including outcomes, complication management, and training modalities.

Prospective Outcomes of Ultra Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Consecutive Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Ultra mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a less invasive technique of percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat small to medium sized calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the outcomes of ultra mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in a single surgeon, consecutive cohort study. Data on 94 patients who underwent ultra mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy were collected. RESULTS: Mean ± SD calculus size was 15.9 ± 4.5 mm and mean density was 1,106 ± 167 HU. Access was achieved via the upper pole in 8 cases, interpolar in 33 and lower pole in 54. Mean operative time was 54 minutes (range 28 to 120). Mean hemoglobin loss was 0.81 gm/dl and the mean creatinine increase was 0.05 mg/dl. There were no transfusions or kidney injuries. Grade I and IIIb complications were observed in 4 and 1 patients, respectively. The most serious complication was a perinephric collection. Postoperatively oral analgesia was sufficient in 86 patients (91%). Mean length of stay was 38.2 ± 15.9 hours. Nephrostomy drainage was used in 13 patients while 7 (7%) required a stent for 1 week. Intraoperatively 99% of renal units were stone free (absence of detectable calculi) on fluoroscopy, and 74% and 81% were stone free on day 1 postoperative ultrasound and 1-month computerized tomography, respectively. The 10 to 20 mm stones showed less bleeding, shorter operative time and a significantly lower requirement for nephrostomy or a Double-J(®) stent. CONCLUSIONS: Ultra mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy appears to be effective and safe with a short length of stay. It may be a valuable addition to the armamentarium to treat 10 to 20 mm calculi in patients who wish to avoid routine nephrostomy or stents. Randomized, controlled trials are required.

Ultra-mini PCNL versus flexible ureteroscopy: a matched analysis of treatment costs (endoscopes and disposables) in patients with renal stones 10-20 mm.

PURPOSE: Latest publications state equal efficacy of a recently introduced new percutaneous technique ("ultra-mini PCNL", UMP) and flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) in the treatment of medium-size urinary stones. Today we face challenges concerning cost-effectiveness and reduction of in-hospital length of stay. In this retrospective study, we compare clinical outcome parameters and costs of treatment (endoscopes and disposables) of both techniques. METHODS: Thirty patients treated by UMP at two tertiary university centres were matched to 30 fURS patients from previously recorded databases. Data analysis included operating time, length of stay, stone-free rates (SFR), complications (>Clavien II), ancillary procedures (presurgical ureteral stenting, secondary ureteral stenting or placement of a nephrostomy tube, secondary procedures) and costs for disposable materials and instruments (endoscopes, as calculated per procedure). RESULTS: We found no significant differences in operating times (UMP vs. fURS: 121/102 min), hospital length of stay (2.3/2.0 days), SFR (84/87 %) and complications (7/7 %). Costs for disposable materials and endoscopes were 656 euro (UMP) and 1,160 euro (fURS) per procedure. CONCLUSIONS: UMP and fURS are both safe and effective in the treatment of medium-size urinary stones. Costs for endoscopes and disposable materials are significantly lower in UMP.

A novel technique of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: introduction and an initial experience for treatment of upper urinary calculi less than 2 cm.

OBJECTIVES: To describe our novel modified technique of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP) using of a novel 6 Fr mininephroscope through an 11-13 Fr metal sheath to perform holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy. METHODS: The medical records of 36 patients with moderate-sized (<20 mm) kidney stones treated with UMP from April to July 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were assessed at the 1st day and 1st month postoperatively by KUB and US to assess stone-free status. RESULTS: The mean stone size was 14.9 ± 4.1 mm (rang: 6-20). The average operative time was 59.8 ± 15.9 (30-90) min. The stone-free rate at postoperative 1st day and 1st month was 88.9% and 97.2%. The mean hospital stay was 3.0 ± 0.9 (2-5) days. Complications were noted in 6 (16.7%) cases according to the Clavien classification, including sepsis in 2 (5.6%) cases (grade II), urinary extravasations in 1 (2.8%) case (grade IIIa), and fever in 3 (8.3%) cases (grade II). No patients needed blood transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: UMP is technically feasible, safe, and efficacious for moderate-sized renal stones with an advantage of high stone-free rates and low complication rates. However, due to the limits of its current unexplored indications, UMP is therefore a supplement to, not a substitute for, the standard mini-PCNL technology.

Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): one more armamentarium.

OBJECTIVE: To describe our newly developed technique for the removal of renal stones, which we have called ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP). METHODS: UMP was performed in 62 patients using a 3.5-F ultra-thin telescope and specially designed inner and outer sheaths. A standard puncture was made and the tract was dilated up to 13 F. The outer sheath was introduced into the pelvicalyceal system and the stone was disintegrated with a 365-µ holmium laser fibre, introduced through the inner sheath. Stone fragments were evacuated using the specially designed sheath by creating an eddy current of saline; the fragments then came out automatically. RESULTS: The mean calculus size was 16.8 mm. Four of the 62 patients were children, three had a solitary kidney and two were obese. UMP was feasible in all cases with a mean (SD) 1.4 (1.0) gm/dL haemoglobin decrease and a mean hospital stay of 1.2 (0.8) days. The stone-free rate at 1 month was 86.66%. In two patients intraoperative bleeding obscured vision, requiring conversion to mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. There was one postoperative complication of hydrothorax, but there were no other postoperative complications and no auxiliary procedures were required. CONCLUSIONS: UMP is a very safe and effective method of removing renal calculi up to 20 mm. The use of consumables and disposables is minimal and the patient recovery was fast. Further clinical studies and direct comparison with other available techniques are required to define the place of UMP in the treatment of low-bulk and medium-bulk renal urolithiasis. It may be particularly useful for lower calyx calculi and paediatric cases.

Non urothelial bladder cancers: a case series.

Non urothelial bladder cancers frequently present a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. The article presents a case series of 21 patients of non urothelial urinary bladder cancers presented in our institute over a period of three years and review of literature on this rare condition. Details of patients were reviewed from hospital records of surgical, medical, radiotherapy and pathology departments. Simple percentage and frequencies have been used to interpret the data. Total 21 patients were included in the study. 12 (57.2 %) were males and 9 (42.8 %) were females (M: F :: 4:3). Mean age of the patients was 51.3 years ranging from 22 to 65 years. Eleven (52.3 %) out of twenty one patients had hematuria as their presenting complaint. Out of 21, there were nine (42.8 %) adenocarcinoma, nine (42.8 %) were SCC and one (4.76 %) each of carcinosarcoma, neuroendocrine tumor and sarcoma. Fourteen (66.6 %) patients out of 21 were referred for upfront surgery. Out of remaining seven (33.33 %) patients from the non surgical group three were referred for definitive concurrent chemoradiation, two for definitive radiotherapy. One patient of adenocarcinoma (non urachal) was referred for palliative chemotherapy. Remaining one patient of neuroendocrine tumor who was referred for neoadjuvant chemotherapy died before any definitive treatment could be considered. This study highlights the role of surgery and status of adjuvant therapies in the management of non urothelial bladder cancers.