To compare the efficacy and safety of a novel dual-sheath approach (combined metal and peel-away sheath) versus a single peel-away sheath in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MIPCNL) for complex renal or ureteral calculi, and to identify factors associated with postoperative residual stones. This retrospective two-center study included 211 patients with complex renal or ureteral calculi who underwent MIPCNL between January 2023 and December 2024 (dual-sheath group, n =123; single-sheath group, n =88). All procedures were performed by experienced surgeons following a standardized protocol. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance baseline characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors associated with residual stones. Kaplan–Meier analysis with log-rank testing was used to compare cumulative residual stone risk between groups. Baseline characteristics were generally comparable between groups. The dual-sheath group showed a trend toward a higher 4-week stone-free rate compared with the single-sheath group (82.9% vs. 71.6%, P =0.072). The secondary intervention rate was significantly lower in the dual-sheath group (0.81% vs. 12.5%, P <0.001). No significant differences were observed in postoperative complication rates between groups. Cox regression analysis indicated that dual-sheath use was independently associated with a reduced risk of residual stones (HR =0.47, 95% CI: 0.25–0.88, P =0.019), with consistent results across sensitivity models. Kaplan–Meier analysis demonstrated a significantly lower cumulative incidence of residual stones in the dual-sheath group (log-rank P =0.0063). The dual-sheath technique appears to be a feasible and safe modification of MIPCNL for complex renal or ureteral calculi. It is associated with a reduced risk of residual stones and fewer secondary interventions, while a non-significant trend toward improved stone-free rates was observed. Further prospective multicenter studies are needed to confirm these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: