Comparison of Stone Clearance in Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Patients with Small Renal Calculi

Authors

  • Jawad Arshad Department of Urology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Muhammad Ejaz Siddiqui Department of Urology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Muhammad Zahid Ahmad Department of Urology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Shams Ul Islam Department of Urology, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Maira Zubair Maryam Nawaz Health Clinic, 319 GB Toba Tec Singh,, Pakistan
  • Esha Gohar Combined Military Hospital Kharian Cant, Gujrat, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v6i6.1927

Keywords:

Nephrolithiasis, Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, Stone clearance, Small renal calculi

Abstract

Nephrolithiasis is a common urological condition, with prevalence ranging between 1% and 19.1% in South Asia, including Pakistan. Management depends on stone size, location, and patient characteristics. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is a non-invasive treatment with variable success rates. In contrast, mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) is a minimally invasive procedure that offers higher stone clearance rates. The choice of modality is crucial for stones ≤1.5 cm, where an optimal balance between efficacy and invasiveness is required. Objective: To compare stone clearance rates between mini-PCNL and ESWL in patients with small renal calculi (≤1.5 cm). Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Urology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Lahore, in collaboration with Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, from November 2024 to April 2025. Ninety-two patients who met the eligibility criteria were randomized into two groups: Mini-PCNL (n = 46) and ESWL (n = 46). Data on demographics, stone size, and location were recorded. Stone clearance was defined as the absence of residual calculi confirmed by ultrasound KUB and X-ray KUB—on postoperative day 1 for mini-PCNL and at 4 weeks for ESWL. Data were analyzed using SPSS v22. A chi-square test was applied, with a p-value of ≤ 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: The mean age was 35.8 ± 12.9 years, with males comprising 73.9% of the sample. The mean stone size was 11.2 ± 3.3 mm. The overall stone-free rate was 64.1%. In the mini-PCNL group, stone-free rate was 65.2% compared to 63% in the ESWL group (p = 0.82). Subgroup analysis revealed that for stones 10–15 mm, mini-PCNL achieved a significantly higher clearance (65.2%) compared to ESWL (29.4%). Stones <10 mm, present only in the ESWL group, showed an 86.2% clearance rate. Conclusion: Mini-PCNL and ESWL showed comparable overall clearance rates for renal stones ≤1.5 cm. However, ESWL was more effective for stones <10 mm, while mini-PCNL demonstrated superior clearance for stones 10–15 mm. Thus, ESWL is preferable for smaller calculi, whereas mini-PCNL should be considered for larger stones requiring a single-session definitive treatment.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Leslie SW, Sajjad H, Murphy PB. Renal calculi, nephrolithiasis. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 [updated 2024 Apr 20].

Ferraro PM, Taylor EN, Curhan GC. Factors associated with sex differences in the risk of kidney stones. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2023;38(1):177-83. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfac037

Bashir A, Zuberi SK, Musharraf B, Khan H, Ather MH. Perception of dietary influences on renal stone formation among the general population. Cureus. 2022;14(6):e26024. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.26024

Bargagli M, Scoglio M, Howles SA, Fuster DG. Kidney stone disease: risk factors, pathophysiology and management. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2025; [Online ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-025-00990-x

Manzoor H, Leslie SW, Saikali SW. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 [updated 2024 Oct 18]. Jiao B, Lai S, Xu X, Zhang M, Diao T, Zhang G. The efficacy of flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for ≤2 cm renal and proximal ureteral calculi: a retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(11):e14535. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000014535

Zeng G, Zhong W, Chaussy C, Tiselius HG, Xu C, Turney B, et al. International Alliance of Urolithiasis guideline on shockwave lithotripsy. Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9:513-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2022.11.013

Naghipour MA, Nazari A. Predictive variables of success in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Focus Med Sci J. 2017;3:54-8. https://doi.org/10.21859/focsci-03041469

Baba D, Dilek İE, Başaran E, Şenoğlu Y, Balık AY, Taşkıran AT. Treatment strategies for kidney stones following ESWL failure: a prospective comparative study of three surgical approaches. J Urol Surg. 2025;12(2):79-86. https://doi.org/10.4274/jus.galenos.2025.2024-9-10

Sebaey A, Taleb AA, Elbashir S, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy (RIRS) vs mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MINI-PCNL) for renal stones 20–30 mm: a prospective randomized study. Afr J Urol. 2022;28:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-022-00278-7

Mahmood SN, Falah B, Ahmed C, Fakhralddin S, Tawfeeq H. Is mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy a game changer for the treatment of renal stones in children? Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;37:45-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2021.12.014

Yılmaz S, Topcuoğlu M, Demirel F. Evaluation of factors affecting success rate in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a five-year experience. J Urol Surg. 2023;10(3):245-52. https://doi.org/10.4274/jus.galenos.2023.2022.0068

Buldu İ, Tepeler A, Karatağ T, İnan R, Armağan A, İstanbulluoğlu O. Combined mini- and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for complex renal calculi. Turk J Urol. 2016;42(3):150-4. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2016.45381

Ahmad T, Ullah E, Ur Rehman I, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating renal pelvis calculus in infants. J Pediatr Endosc Surg. 2025;7:15-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42804-025-00265-z

Hassan M, El-Nahas AR, Sheir KZ, El-Tabey NA, El-Assmy AM, Elshal AM, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for treating a 20–30 mm single renal pelvic stone. Arab J Urol. 2015;13(3):212-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2015.04.002

Nojaba L, Guzman N. Nephrolithiasis. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022.

Stamatelou K, Goldfarb DS. Epidemiology of kidney stones. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(3):424. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11030424

Mazzucchi E, Berto FCG, Denstedt J, Danilovic A, Batagello CA, Torricelli FCM, et al. Treatment of renal lower pole stones: an update. Int Braz J Urol. 2022;48(1):165-74. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2020.1023

Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Kidney stones: overview. InformedHealth.org. 2016 Feb 25 [updated 2019 Feb 28].

Ergani B, Ozbilen MH, Yalcin MY, Boyacioglu H, Ilbey YO. Effect of hydronephrosis grade on stone-free rate in retrograde intrarenal surgery with flexible ureterorenoscopy. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2021;9(2):194-201.

Tonyali S, Yilmaz M, Karaaslan M, Ceylan C, Isikay L. Prediction of stone-free status after single-session retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones. Turk J Urol. 2018;44(6):473-7. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2018.88615

Kang DH, Cho KS, Chung DY, Jeong WS, Jung HD, Kim DK, Lee JY. Stone-free rates of mPCNL, PCNL, and RIRS: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Urogenit Tract Infect. 2022;17(1):14-25. https://doi.org/10.14777/uti.2022.17.1.14

Chen P, Wei TT, Huang EY, Lin TP, Huang TH, Lin CC, et al. Comparison of stone-free rate between percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Chin Med Assoc. 2023;86(5):485-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000913

Hatipoglu NK, Sancaktutar AA, Tepeler A, Bodakci MN, Penbegul N, Atar M, et al. Comparison of shockwave lithotripsy and miniperc for treatment of kidney stones in children. J Endourol. 2013;27(9):1141-6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0066

El-Mesery MA, Abul-fotouh AA, Hassan HA. Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in treatment of non-lower polar high-density renal stone 10–20 mm (a prospective randomized study). Al-Azhar Med J. 2021;50(3):1647-58. https://doi.org/10.21608/amj.2021.178253

Radwan AI, Saif AMI, Samir YR, Maged WA, Gamal MA. Comparative study between ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus stented extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of renal stones in Egypt. Arab J Urol. 2023;21(4):273-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2023.2211897

Saygın H, Gökce G, Korğalı E. The evaluations of ESWL, RIRS and m-PCNL treatments in kidney stones smaller than two centimeters. Med Sci Discovery. 2020;7(4):450-4. https://doi.org/10.36472/msd.v7i4.366

Jones P, Elmussareh M, Aboumarzouk OM, Mucksavage P, Somani BK. Role of minimally invasive (mini and ultra-mini) PCNL for adult urinary stone disease in the modern era: evidence from a systematic review. Curr Urol Rep. 2018;19(4):27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-018-0764-5

Wagenius M, Oddason K, Utter M, Popiolek M, Forsvall A, Linder A. Factors influencing stone-free rate of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL): a cohort study. Scand J Urol. 2022;56(4):335-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2022.2055137

Qattan MM, Alasiri NM, Aljuaid H, Alsifiri NS, Saifaddin ZK, Lamy SH. Stone-free rate after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the management of renal stones in relation to different sizes and locations of the stone. World Fam Med J/Middle East J Fam Med. 2020;18(1):49-53. https://doi.org/10.5742/MEWFM.2020.93729

Downloads

Published

2025-06-30

How to Cite

Arshad, J. ., Siddiqui, M. E. ., Ahmad, M. Z. ., Islam, S. U. ., Zubair, M. ., & Gohar, E. . (2025). Comparison of Stone Clearance in Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Patients with Small Renal Calculi. Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal, 6(6), 315–318. https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v6i6.1927

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles