Tubeless PCNL versus standard PCNL for the treatment of upper urinary tract stones: a propensity score matching analysis

Is double-J stent mandatory in complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy for adult patients with staghorn renal stones?

BACKGROUND

It is controversial whether double-J (DJ) stent insertion is necessary in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for patients with staghorn stones. We compared the outcomes of using ureteral catheters and double-J stents in tubeless complete supine PCNL (csPCNL) of staghorn stones.

METHODS

In this analytical cross-sectional study, from May 2008 to August 2022, 123 patients who underwent tubeless csPCNL were assessed. Patients were divided into two groups by either tubeless csPCNL with DJ stent (Group I; n = 23) or totally tubeless just with perioperative ureteral stent (Group II; n = 100). Demographic characteristics, stone-related factors, perioperative and postoperative parameters were compared in groups.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable in groups. The operative time in group I was significantly longer than group II (68.26 vs. 55.25 min, P = 0.05). However, the duration of hospitalization in Group I was shorter than the other group (1.81 vs. 2.37 days, P = 0.03). Stone free rate was notably higher in Group I (90.5% vs. 79.8.0%) with no statistically significant difference. No significant differences were found in major complications. Patients in Group II had a significantly shorter time to return to normal life (6.48 vs. 7.91 day; P = 0.043). Multivariable linear regression showed the preoperative creatinine level and stone size can affect the operative time (P = 0.02). In addition, stone number and underlying disease can affect the length of hospital stay (P = 0.007 & 0.030, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Although not inserting a double J stent after csPCNL has acceptable results, because of higher residual rate in staghorn stone which cause more incidence of renal colic, longer time of hospital stay and return to normal life, inserting DJ stent is recommended.

[Efficacy and safety of mini-track, mini-nephroscopy and mini-ultrasonic probe percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of 1.5-2.5 cm kidney stones]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of mini-track, mini-nephroscopy and mini-ultrasonic probe percutaneous nephrolithotomy (3mPCNL) for the treatment of 1.5-2.5 cm kidney stones.

METHODS

The perioperative data and postoperative follow-up data of a total of 25 patients with about 1.5-2.5 cm kidney stones who underwent 3mPCNL under ultrasound guidance in Peking University People's Hospital from November 2023 to January 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. During the matching period, the 25 patients with 1.5-2.5 cm kidney stones receiving standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sPCNL) were matched one-to-one according to the criterion that the absolute difference of the maximum diameter of stones between the two groups was less than 1 mm. The operative time, renal function changes, postoperative stone-free rate, hemoglobin changes, and complication rate of the two treatments were compared, and then the effectiveness and safety of 3mPCNL were preliminarily analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in mean age, preoperative median creatinine, preoperative mean hemoglobin, preoperative mean hematocrit, median stone maximum diameter, and median stone CT density between the 3mPCNL group and the sPCNL group. The median operation time in the 3mPCNL group was 60.0 (45.0-110.0) min, with no statistical significance compared with the sPCNL group, and all the patients underwent single-channel operations. The mean hemoglobin after operation in the 3mPCNL group was (115.3±15.5) mmol/L, and there was no significant difference between the preoperative group and the sPCNL group, and the mean hemoglobin decreased significantly between the sPCNL group and the sPCNL group [(9.5±2.2) mmol/L vs. (10.1±1.9) mmol/L]. The mean hematocrit after operation was (28.0±5.2)%, and the difference was statistically significant compared with that before operation (t=2.414, P=0.020). The mean hematocrit drop was not statistically signi-ficant compared with the sPCNL group (2.3% vs. 2.7%). The median serum creatinine in the 3mPCNL group was 74.0 (51.0-118.0) μmol/L after operation, and the difference was statistically significant compared with that before operation (Z=-2.980, P=0.005). The stone-free rate in the 3mPCNL group and the sPCNL group was 96.0% and 97.3%, respectively, and the mean hospital stay was (4.3± 1.4) d and (5.5±2.0) d, respectively, with the statistical significance (t=0.192, P=0.025). After the operation, one patient in sPCNL group had massive hemorrhage after the nephrostomy tube was removed, which was improved after selective renal artery embolization. One patient in the 3mPCNL group developed mild perirenal hematoma, which was improved after conservative treatment, and no complications were observed in the other patients.

CONCLUSION

3mPCNL in the treatment of 1.5-2.5 cm kidney stones can achieve an effective rate comparable to sPCNL, and can achieve the ideal stone-free rate in a shorter operative time with a lower rate of surgery-related complications.

[Thulium or holmium laser or both: where will the journey take us?]

The Holmium:YAG laser has been the gold standard for laser lithotripsy over the past three decades and, since the late 1990s, also for prostate enucleation. Pulsed thulium fibre lasers (TFL) demonstrated their efficacy in in-vitro experiments and were introduced to the market a few years ago. Initial clinical results for TFL in lithotripsy and enucleation are very promising. In addition to TFL, a pulsed Thulium:YAG solid-state laser has been introduced, but clinical data for this laser are currently limited. This article aims to review the key technological differences between Ho:YAG lasers and pulsed thulium lasers and compare/discuss the initial clinical results for stone lithotripsy and laser enucleation.In-vitro studies have demonstrated the technical superiority of TFL compared with Ho:YAG lasers. However, as TFL is still a new technology, only limited studies are available to date, and optimal settings for lithotripsy have not been established. For enucleation, the differences of TFL compared with a high-power Ho:YAG laser seem to be clinically irrelevant. Initial studies on pulsed Tm:YAG lasers show good results, but there continues to be a lack of comparative studies.Based on the current literature, pulsed thulium lasers have the potential of being an alternative to Ho:YAG lasers. However, further studies are necessary to determine the optimal laser technology for enucleation and lithotripsy of urinary stones, considering all parameters, including efficacy, safety, and cost.