Comparison of Trifecta Outcomes in Standard Versus Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Renal Stone Management
- PMID: 40206887
- PMCID: PMC11980021
- DOI: 10.7759/cureus.80328
Comparison of Trifecta Outcomes in Standard Versus Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Renal Stone Management
Abstract
Introduction: Urolithiasis is a common urological condition, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a widely used treatment option for renal stones. The trifecta analysis, which includes the complete stone-free rate (SFR), absence of complications (Clavien-Dindo classification), and no need for auxiliary procedures, provides a standardized method for comparing outcomes. This study evaluates the trifecta outcomes of standard PCNL versus mini PCNL Methodology: This prospective cohort study was conducted at the Department of Urology, Institute of Kidney Diseases, Peshawar, from January 2022 to March 2024. A total of 180 consecutive patients who underwent PCNL were enrolled in the study. Using a lottery method, patients were randomly assigned to two equal groups (standard PCNL and mini PCNL). Both groups consisted of 90 patients each. Patients who required a change in the planned surgical procedure were replaced with new participants from the sample frame. A structured proforma was used to record preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data for the trifecta analysis. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0 (Released 2015; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States). Logistic regression was performed to assess predictive factors for the trifecta, and the odds ratio (OR), confidence interval (CI), and p-value were calculated.
Results: The mean age in the standard PCNL group was 43.21 ± 3.51 years vs 44.03 ± 3.17 years in the mini PCNL group (p = 0.10). The mean stone size in the standard PCNL group was 30.62 ± 5.88 mm vs 30.28 ± 6.03 mm in the mini PCNL group (p = 0.70). The mean stone density in the standard PCNL group was 1366.25 ± 74.28 HU vs 1342.66 ± 107.34 HU in the mini PCNL group (p = 0.08). Stones were completely cleared in 84 (93.3%) patients in the standard PCNL group and 69 (76.7%) in the mini PCNL group (p = 0.02). Auxiliary procedures, including extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and repeat double J (DJ) stenting, were required in four patients (4.4%) in the standard PCNL group compared to 20 patients (20%) in the mini PCNL group. Regarding complications, the standard PCNL group recorded complications in 16 patients (17.77%), including Grade 1 (six patients), Grade 2 (five patients), and Grade 3 (five patients), according to the Clavein-Dindo classification. In the mini PCNL group, six patients (6.66%) experienced postoperative complications, including Grade 1 (five patients) and Grade 2 (one patient) (p = 0.02). The overall trifecta success rate was 71.12% in the standard PCNL group vs 50.03% in the mini PCNL group.
Conclusion: The trifecta analysis indicates that standard PCNL has a higher SFR, while mini PCNL is safer but requires more auxiliary procedures.
Keywords: endoscopic stone surgery; endourology; percutaneous nephrolithotomy (pcnl); trifecta; urolithiasis.
Copyright © 2025, Ahmed et al.
Conflict of interest statement
Human subjects: Consent for treatment and open access publication was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Institutional Research and Ethical Board of the Institute of Kidney Diseases, Peshawar, Pakistan issued approval 341. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Similar articles
-
Revisiting Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy/Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Era: A Retrospective Audit.Cureus. 2024 Oct 19;16(10):e71847. doi: 10.7759/cureus.71847. eCollection 2024 Oct. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 39559627 Free PMC article.
-
Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a safe alternative to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for high-density, renal stones: a prospective, randomised trial.BJU Int. 2021 Dec;128(6):744-751. doi: 10.1111/bju.15493. Epub 2021 Jun 13. BJU Int. 2021. PMID: 34028170 Clinical Trial.
-
Definition and Unfavorable Risk Factors of Trifecta in Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.J Endourol. 2021 Aug;35(8):1140-1145. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.1192. Epub 2021 Mar 10. J Endourol. 2021. PMID: 33554728
-
Endourologic Management (PCNL, URS, SWL) of Stones in Solitary Kidney: A Systematic Review from European Association of Urologists Young Academic Urologists and Uro-Technology Groups.J Endourol. 2020 Jan;34(1):7-17. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0455. Epub 2019 Sep 26. J Endourol. 2020. PMID: 31456421
-
Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery vs. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy vs. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Lower Pole Renal Stones 10-20 mm : A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.Urol J. 2019 May 5;16(2):97-106. doi: 10.22037/uj.v0i0.4681. Urol J. 2019. PMID: 30604405
References
-
- EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T. Eur Urol. 2016;69:475–482. - PubMed
-
- Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, et al. http://www.jurology.com/doi/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090. J Urol. 2016;196:1153–1160. - PubMed
-
- Comparative analysis of standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) for renal stones larger than 2 cm at a rural hospital: a study protocol. Hatwar G, Dhale A, Dharamshi JD, Pendkar R. https://www.cureus.com/articles/253237-comparative-analysis-of-standard-... Cureus. 2024;16:0. - PMC - PubMed
-
- The ‘mini-perc’ technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Jackman SV, Docimo SG, Cadeddu JA, Bishoff JT, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9870281/ World J Urol. 1998;16:371–374. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources