Direct-guided punction percutaneous nephrolitothomy versus standard percutaneous nephrolitothomy
Introduction . Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is considered the gold standard for treating renal stones larger than 2 centimetres. The initial stage of PCNL involves retrograde catheterisation of the pelvicalyceal system (PCS) with contrast enhancement. Direct-guided puncture is a modification of standard PCNL, where puncture of the PCS is performed without retrograde enhancement of the PCS. Objective. To compare the efficacy and safety of standard PCNL (miniPCNL/mPCNL) versus direct-guided puncture PCNL (dgPCNL). Materials & methods . The study involved 67 patients who were recruited between September 2021 and March 2023. They were divided into two groups. Group 1 (n = 35) underwent standard PCNL, while group 2 (n = 32) received dgPCNL. We compared the following parameters: surgery duration and puncture time, visualization (using the Likert scale), stone-free rate (SFR), blood loss (post-op haemoglobin level decrease), renal function (post-op creatinine variations), and postoperative complications. To assess SFR, patients underwent abdominal computed tomography (CT) on the first post-op day. Postoperative complications were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Results . The average surgery time in group 2 was 16 minutes, which was significantly less than that in group 1 (p < 0.001). We believe this reduction is due to the absence of the first stage. The puncture time did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.739), with an average puncture time of 2 minutes. There was no significant difference in SFR between the groups, with 91.4% in group 1 and 93.8% in group 2 (p > 0.999). Similarly, there were no significant differences in haemoglobin loss and creatinine changes between the groups (p = 0.32 and p = 0.442, respectively). No severe complications were observed, as classified by Clavien-Dindo III and IV. Conclusion . dgPCNL is safe and effective compared to standard PCNL, offering the advantage of reduced operative time. Blood transfusions were not required in either group.
Authors
- Farzona I Tursunova (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1827-9498)
- E V Shpot (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1121-9430)
- G.N. Akopyan (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1583-6121)
- Petr Glybochko (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5541-2251)
- Nariman K. Gadzhiev (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6255-0193)
- D. V. Chinenov
- T.P. Fedortsova (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4568-842X)
- K. M. Yusupov
- H. H. Davronbekov
- I. I. Tursunov (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7267-6767)
Institutions
- Sechenov University (RU)
- Medical Technologies (Czechia) (CZ)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Urology Herald
- Published
- 2025-03-01
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2025-13-1-5-12
- Primary Topic
- Kidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00