Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective cohort study compares outcomes of mPCNL and standard PCNL for renal stones, indicating mPCNL is effective with benefits in recovery.
Background: The comparative efficacy and safety of minipercutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) versusstandard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in selected patients with renal stones ≤ 2 cm remain insufficiently defined. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 146 adult patients with single renal stones ≤ 2 cm who underwent PCNL between May 2023 and May 2025. The patients were assigned to the mPCNL group (≤ 14 Fr, n = 72) or standard PCNL group (22– 24 Fr, n = 74). All procedures were performed using holmium: Yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) laser lithotripsy. The primary outcome was the single-session stone-free rate assessed by noncontrast computed tomography (CT) within 3 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included perioperative parameters, renal function indices (serum creatinine and cystatin C), inflammatory biomarkers (interleukin-6 (IL-6), procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP)) and postoperative complications. Results: The single-session stone-free rates were comparable between the mPCNL and standard PCNL groups (94.4% vs. 89.2%, p = 0.248). The mPCNL group showed significantly lower intraoperative blood loss, earlier ambulation and shorter hospital stay (all p < 0.001). Although inflammatory markers increased after surgery in both groups, the magnitude of increase in PCT and CRP was significantly lower in the mPCNL group (all p < 0.001). The overall complication rates were low and comparable between the groups (6.94% vs. 12.16%, p = 0.284). Conclusions: In selected patients with renal stones ≤ 2 cm requiring percutaneous intervention, mPCNL provides similar stone clearance and short-term renal safety compared with standard PCNL whilst offering the advantages of reduced surgical trauma, attenuated postoperative inflammatory response and faster recovery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2026 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: