Is Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy the Modality of Choice Versus Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for a 20 to 30 mm Single Renal Pelvic Stone with ≤1000 Hounsfield Unit in Adults? A Prospective Randomized Comparative Study

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the efficacy, complications, and costs of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the treatment of a 20 to 30 mm single renal pelvic stone with a density ≤1000 HU. Patients and Methods: Eighty patients were prospectively randomized to receive either PNL or SWL during May 2017 to April 2019. The relevant demographic and clinical characteristics were compared. Results: The mean age in the PNL and SWL groups was 43.25 ± 15.16 and 44.18 ± 12.08 years, respectively. The mean stone sizes were 25.2 ± 3.9 and 24.6 ± 2.3 mm, respectively. The stone-free rate (SFR) was significantly different after the primary procedures (92.5% vs 37.5%, respectively; p < 0.04), but it was comparable after 3 months (97.5% vs 90%, respectively; p = 0.723), with a higher rate of auxiliary procedures after SWL (p = 0.017). On multivariate analysis, stone density was the only significant variable for the SFR in the SWL group (p = 0.004). Complications occurred in 27.5% and 22.5% of cases, respectively (p = 0.796). The mean costs of SWL (650.23 ± 424.74 United States Dollars [US$]) were significantly lower than those of PNL (1137.65 ± 224.43 US$; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The SFRs for PNL and SWL were not significantly different after 3 months in the treatment of a 20 to 30 mm single renal pelvic stone with ≤1000 HU, although PNL provided a significantly higher rate after its primary procedure. SWL was significantly less costly, but it mandated a significantly higher number of auxiliary procedures than PNL.

Keywords: kidney stone; percutaneous nephrolithotomy; shockwave lithotripsy; stone density; stone-free rate.