Advertisement

Comparative Study of Percutaneous Tic Technique Vs Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Published:February 18, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.12.040

      Abstract

      Objective

      To compare the PERC-tic technique, described as placement of dual wires under fluoroscopic guidance adjacent to the stone within the obstructed calyx, to standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with working wires secured down the ureter.

      Materials and Methods

      This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent a PCNL procedure between October 2016 and November 2018. Patients undergoing the PERC-tic technique were compared to patients undergoing standard PCNL. Regression models evaluated if PERC-tic PCNL was associated with equivalent stone-free rates to standard PCNL at 90 days, need for secondary procedures, and 90-day hospital readmission.

      Results

      This study involved 126 PCNL cases of which 63 were done using the PERC-tic technique and 63 with standard PCNL. In multivariate analysis, there was no statistical difference in 90-day stone-free rate between standard PCNL and PERC-tic cohorts (P = .08). We did note a 6 times higher likelihood of needing secondary procedures for residual stones in the PERC-tic vs standard PCNL groups (71% vs 30% P <.0001). There was no statistical significance in 90-day hospital readmission rates between groups (P = .47).

      Conclusion

      Our findings suggest similar stone-free rate at 90 days and higher rates of secondary procedures after PERC-tic PCNL compared to the standard approach; however, there was no difference in complications. These findings may reflect decreased visualization with the PERC-tic technique or simply be reflective of the case difficulty requiring the use of the PERC-tic technique. These findings can be used for patient counseling when considering this technique for complex stone disease.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Fernström I
        • Johansson B
        Percutaneous pyelolithotomy.
        Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976; 10: 257-259https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.1976.11882084
        • Patel SR
        • Nakada SY
        The modern history and evolution of percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
        J Endourol. 2015; 29: 153-157https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0287
        • Ghani KR
        • Andonian S
        • Bultitude M
        • et al.
        Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: update, trends, and future directions.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 70: 382-396https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.047
        • Lima E
        • Rodrigues PL
        • Mota P
        • et al.
        Ureteroscopy-assisted percutaneous kidney access made easy: first clinical experience with a novel navigation system using electromagnetic guidance (IDEAL Stage 1).
        Eur Urol. 2017; 72: 610-616https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.011
        • Karakoyunlu N
        • Goktug G
        • Sener NC
        • et al.
        A comparison of standard PCNL and staged retrograde FURS in pelvis stones over 2 cm in diameter: a prospective randomized study.
        Urolithiasis. 2015; 43: 283-287https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0768-2
        • De S
        • Autorino R
        • Kim FJ
        • et al.
        Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 125-137https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.003
        • Hulbert JC
        • Reddy PK
        • Hunter DW
        • et al.
        Percutaneous techniques for the management of caliceal diverticula containing calculi.
        J Urol. 1986; 135: 225-227
        • Kim SC
        • Kuo RL
        • Tinmouth WW
        • Watkins S
        • Lingeman JE
        Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for caliceal diverticular calculi: a novel single stage approach.
        J Urol. 2005; 173: 1194-1198https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000152320.41995.c2
        • Thomas K
        • Smith NC
        • Hegarty N
        • Glass JM
        The Guy's stone score—grading the complexity of percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures.
        Urology. 2011; 78: 277-281https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.12.026
        • de la Rosette JJMCH
        • Opondo D
        • Daels FPJ
        • et al.
        Categorisation of complications and validation of the Clavien score for percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 62: 246-255https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.055
        • Tefekli A
        • Karadag MA
        • Tepeler K
        • et al.
        Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified Clavien grading system: looking for a standard.
        Eur Urol. 2008; 53: 184-190https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.06.049
        • de la Rosette JJMCH
        • Zuazu JR
        • Tsakiris P
        • et al.
        Prognostic factors and percutaneous nephrolithotomy morbidity: a multivariate analysis of a contemporary series using the Clavien classification.
        J Urol. 2008; 180: 2489-2493https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.08.025
        • Semins MJ
        • Bartik L
        • Chew BH
        • et al.
        Multicenter analysis of postoperative CT findings after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: defining complication rates.
        Urology. 2011; 78: 291-294https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.11.008
        • Tailly T
        • Denstedt J
        Innovations in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
        Int J Surg. 2016; 36: 665-672https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.11.007
        • Jones P
        • Bennett G
        • Aboumarzouk OM
        • Griffin S
        • Somani BK
        Role of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy techniques—micro and ultra-mini PCNL (&lt;15F) in the pediatric population: a systematic review.
        J Endourol. 2017; 31: 816-824https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0136
        • Wright A
        • Rukin N
        • Smith D
        • De la Rosette J
        • Somani BK
        ‘Mini, ultra, micro’ – nomenclature and cost of these new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques.
        Ther Adv Urol. 2016; 8: 142-146https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287215617674
        • Grasso M
        • Conlin M
        • Bagley D
        Retrograde ureteropyeloscopic treatment of 2 cm. or greater upper urinary tract and minor Staghorn calculi.
        J Urol. 1998; 160: 346-351
        • El-Anany FG
        • Hammouda HM
        • Maghraby HA
        • Elakkad MA
        Retrograde ureteropyeloscopic holmium laser lithotripsy for large renal calculi.
        BJU Int. 2001; 88: 850-853
        • Breda A
        • Ogunyemi O
        • Leppert JT
        • Lam JS
        • Schulam PG
        Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater–is this the new frontier?.
        J Urol. 2008; 179: 981-984https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.10.083
        • Lezrek M
        • Ammani A
        • Bazine K
        • et al.
        The split-leg modified lateral position for percutaneous renal surgery and optimal retrograde access to the upper urinary tract.
        Urology. 2011; 78: 217-220https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.03.012
        • McCahy P
        • Rzetelski-West K
        • Gleeson J
        Complete stone clearance using a modified supine position: initial experience and comparison with prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
        J Endourol. 2013; 27: 705-709https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2012.0650
        • Di Grazia E
        • La Rosa P
        Split-leg percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a safe and versatile technique.
        Arch Ital di Urol e Androl. 2013; 85: 82https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2013.2.82
        • Hamamoto S
        • Yasui T
        • Okada A
        • et al.
        Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for large calculi: simultaneous use of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy overcomes the disadvantageous of percutaneous nephrolithotomy monotherapy.
        J Endourol. 2014; 28: 28-33https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0361
        • Marguet CG
        • Springhart WP
        • Tan YH
        • et al.
        Simultaneous combined use of flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy to reduce the number of access tracts in the management of complex renal calculi.
        BJU Int. 2005; 96: 1097-1100https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05808.x
        • Hamamoto S
        • Yasui T
        • Okada A
        • et al.
        Developments in the technique of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in the prone split-leg position.
        Urology. 2014; 84: 565-570https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.04.020
        • Türk C
        • Petřík A
        • Sarica K
        • et al.
        EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 475-482https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041
        • Armitage JN
        • Irving SO
        • Burgess NA
        Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the United Kingdom: results of a prospective data registry.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 61: 1188-1193https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.003
        • Rosette J de la
        • Assimos D
        • Desai M
        • et al.
        The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients.
        J Endourol. 2011; 25: 11-17https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0424
        • Ghani KR
        • Andonian S
        • Bultitude M
        • et al.
        Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: update, trends, and future directions.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 70: 382-396https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.047
        • Carlson MDA
        • Morrison RS
        Study design, precision, and validity in observational studies.
        J Palliat Med. 2009; 12: 77-82https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2008.9690