Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is the optimum lithotripsy method for high density stones during mini-PNL? Laser, ballistic or combination of both

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Lasers in Medical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) is the primary treatment option for renal stones > 20 mm in diameter. Mini-PNL gained popularity with its minimally invasive nature. The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of ballistic and laser lithotripsy with the combined use of both techniques. Data of 312 patients underwent mini-PNL for renal stones with Hounsfield Unit > 1000 was investigated retrospectively. We identified 104 patients underwent combined ballistic and laser lithotripsy. Propensity score technique was used to create the laser and ballistic lithotripsy groups. Groups were matched on stone size, stone density, and Guy’s stone score. Primary end point of the study was to compare the stone free rate (SFR), complication rates, and duration of surgery. Mean age of the population was 49.4 ± 6.1, stone size was 24.6 ± 6.3 mm, and stone density was 1215 ± 89 HU. The groups were similar for age, stone size, stone density, and Guy’s stone score. The SFR and the complication rates of the 3 groups were similar (p = 0.67). The duration of the surgery was shorter in the combined group (46.1 ± 6.3 min) compared to the laser lithotripsy (54.5 ± 6.6 min) and ballistic lithotripsy (57.2 ± 6.9 min) groups. Both laser and ballistic lithotripsy are effective methods for stone fragmentation during mini-PNL. Combined use of both methods has the potential to improve the fragmentation rates and diminish the operative times in case of high density stones.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, Pace KT, Pais VM Jr, Pearle MS, Preminger GM, Razvi H, Shah O, Matlaga BR (2016) Surgical management of stones: American urological association/endourological society guideline, PART I. J Urol 196(4):1153–1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jackman SV, Docimo SG, Cadeddu JA, Bishoff JT, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW (1998) The “mini-perc” technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 16(6):371–374

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lahme S, Bichler KH, Strohmaier WL, Gotz T (2001) Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stones. Eur Urol 40(6):619–624

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nagele U, Schilling D, Anastasiadis AG, Walcher U, Sievert KD, Merseburger AS, Kuczyk M, Stenzl A (2008) [Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy (MIP)]. Urologe A 47 (9):1066, 1068-1073. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-008-1814-2

  6. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Desai J, Solanki R (2013) Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): one more armamentarium. BJU Int 112(7):1046–1049. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zeng G, Wan S, Zhao Z, Zhu J, Tuerxun A, Song C, Zhong L, Liu M, Xu K, Li H, Jiang Z, Khadgi S, Pal SK, Liu J, Zhang G, Liu Y, Wu W, Chen W, Sarica K (2016) Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP): a new concept in technique and instrumentation. BJU Int 117(4):655–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lahme S (2018) Miniaturisation of PCNL. Urolithiasis 46(1):99–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-1029-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ganesamoni R, Sabnis RB, Mishra S, Parekh N, Ganpule A, Vyas JB, Jagtap J, Desai M (2013) Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing laser lithotripsy with pneumatic lithotripsy in miniperc for renal calculi. J Endourol 27(12):1444–1449. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yamaguchi A, Skolarikos A, Buchholz NP, Chomon GB, Grasso M, Saba P, Nakada S, de la Rosette J, Clinical Research Office Of The Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Study G (2011) Operating times and bleeding complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparison of tract dilation methods in 5,537 patients in the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study. J Endourol 25(6):933–939. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Haupt G, van Ophoven A, Pannek J, Herde T, Senge T (1996) In vitro comparison of two ballistic systems for endoscopic stone disintegration. J Endourol 10(5):417–420. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1996.10.417

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Piergiovanni M, Desgrandchamps F, Cochand-Priollet B, Janssen T, Colomer S, Teillac P, Le Duc A (1994) Ureteral and bladder lesions after ballistic, ultrasonic, electrohydraulic, or laser lithotripsy. J Endourol 8(4):293–299. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1994.8.293

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mager R, Balzereit C, Gust K, Husch T, Herrmann T, Nagele U, Haferkamp A, Schilling D (2016) The hydrodynamic basis of the vacuum cleaner effect in continuous-flow PCNL instruments: an empiric approach and mathematical model. World J Urol 34(5):717–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1682-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sofer M, Giusti G, Proietti S, Mintz I, Kabha M, Matzkin H, Aviram G (2016) Upper calyx approachability through a lower calyx access for prone versus supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 195(2):377–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.07.101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Cossu M, Grande S, Poggio M, Scarpa RM (2008) Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new standard for percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Eur Urol 54(6):1393–1403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.07.073

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Ufuk University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey

    Semih Tangal

  2. Department of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey

    Adem Sancı, Utku Baklacı, Muammer Babayiğit, Murat Can Karaburun, Eralp Kubilay & Mehmet İlker Gökce

Authors
  1. Semih Tangal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adem Sancı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Utku Baklacı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Muammer Babayiğit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Murat Can Karaburun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eralp Kubilay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mehmet İlker Gökce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet İlker Gökce.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the institutional review board. Approval number: 05-299-18.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tangal, S., Sancı, A., Baklacı, U. et al. What is the optimum lithotripsy method for high density stones during mini-PNL? Laser, ballistic or combination of both. Lasers Med Sci 35, 1765–1768 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-020-02971-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-020-02971-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation