• Users Online: 584
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 301-305

Microperc versus miniperc for the management of medium-sized renal stones: a comparative two-center clinical study

1 Department of Urology, Assiut University Hospital, Assiut, Egypt
2 Department of Urology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
3 Department of Urology, Dortmund Teaching Hospital, Dortmund, Germany

Correspondence Address:
Amr A Gaber
Department of Urology, Urology and Nephrology Hospital, Assiut University, Assiut 71515
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/JCMRP.JCMRP_6_20

Rights and Permissions

Objective To date, there is very little evidence directly comparing the outcomes between Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and Micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Because of this evidence gap, we wanted to compare miniperc and microperc with an ultimate purpose to determine which modality is preferred for different stone characteristics. Our hope is that these findings may help guide which technique is most suitable for a given renal stone burden. Patients and methods This is a retrospective collaborative multi-institutional study between Dortmund Teaching Hospital (Germany) and Modena University Hospital (Italy) in which we compared two matched groups of patients. The first group (32 patients) underwent miniperc for medium-sized renal stones in Dortmund, and the second group (19 patients) underwent microperc in Modena. Both groups were matched according to age, sex, BMI, and maximum stone diameter according to preoperative plain KUB films. Results The primary stone-free rates in the miniperc and microperc groups were similar (93.8 vs. 84.2%, P = 0.262). Mean operative time for miniperc was significantly shorter than that of microperc (45.6 ± 18.9 vs. 68.7 ± 35.2 min, P = 0.004). The overall complication rate was 11.7%, with no significant difference between the two groups (12.5% for miniperc vs. 10.5% for microperc, P = 0.604). Mean hospital stay in miniperc was significantly longer than that of microperc (4.7 ± 1.6 vs. 3 ± 1.5 days,P < 0.001). Conclusion Our current data show that microperc is emerging as an effective and safe treatment option for intermediate-sized kidney stones, with outcomes comparable even to miniperc, which is already a well-established treatment with high safety profile in experienced hands.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded17    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal