Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective study compares outcomes of mini-PCNL and f-URS for renal stones in solitary kidneys, suggesting f-URS is safer.
Objective: The optimal surgical approach for 1.0–2.0 cm renal stones in solitary kidney patients remains controversial. This retrospective study compared mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) and flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS) outcomes in this vulnerable population. Methods: Between June 2018 and April 2024, 50 patients with solitary kidneys and 1.0–2.0 cm renal stones underwent either mPCNL (n = 26) or f-URS (n = 24). Outcomes included 3-month stone-free rate (SFR), complications (Clavien–Dindo classification), and renal function (serum creatinine, eGFR by CKD-EPI equation) at the baseline, 72 h, and 1 month. Results: Stone-free rates were comparable (mPCNL 96.2% vs. f-URS 91.7%, p = 0.157). The f-URS group demonstrated significantly less hemoglobin decline (2.2 ± 0.9 vs. 5.7 ± 2.4 g/dL, p < 0.001) and shorter hospitalization (4.1 ± 1.1 vs. 7.8 ± 1.6 days, p < 0.001). All Grade II complications (8.3%, requiring transfusion) occurred in the mPCNL group. At 1 month, serum creatinine decreased more with f-URS (15.4 ± 7.96 vs. 8.7 ± 4.23 μmol/L, p < 0.001), with greater eGFR improvement (16.7 ± 4.7 vs. 15.4 ± 5.2 mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.023). Conclusions: In this retrospective cohort, f-URS achieved comparable stone clearance to mPCNL alongside a superior early safety profile and better short-term renal functional preservation. These preliminary findings suggest that f-URS represents a viable nephron-sparing option for this high-risk population. However, these results are considered hypothesis-generating, and further prospective, long-term studies are required to evaluate the durability of these functional benefits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: