Stone-Free Rates of mPCNL, PCNL, and RIRS: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Article information

Urogenit Tract Infect. 2022;17(1):14-25

Publication date (electronic) : 2022 April 30

doi : https://doi.org/10.14777/uti.2022.17.1.14

Dong Hyuk Kang

, Kang Su Cho ¹

, Doo Yong Chung

, Won Sik Jeong ²

, Hae Do Jung ³

, Do Kyung Kim ⁴

, Joo Yong Lee ⁵^,⁶^,

¹Department of Urology, Inha University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea

²Department of Urology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Urology, Suncheon Medical Center, Suncheon, Korea

⁴Department of Urology, Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Wonkwang University College of Medicine, Gunpo, Korea

⁵Department of Urology, Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁶Department of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁷Center of Evidence Based Medicine, Institute of Convergence Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to: Joo Yong Lee, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3470-1767, Department of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea, Tel: +82-2-2228-2320, Fax: +82-2-312-2538, E-mail: joouro@yuhs.ac

Received 2022 March 7; Revised 2022 April 15; Accepted 2022 April 26.

Abstract

Purpose

Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are performed to treat renal stones, and miniature PCNL (mPCNL) is used as an alternative to conventional PCNL. We conducted a systematic review of published studies regarding RIRS, PCNL, and mPCNL and performed network meta-analysis on successful outcome (stone-free) rates.

Materials and Methods

The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched up to December 2020. Data extraction formats were used to extract data on successful outcome rates, study designs, numbers of subjects and characteristics, and methods used to treat renal stones (i.e., RIRS, PCNL, or mPCNL).

Results

Data obtained by 25 studies were used to compare the stone-free rates of RIRS, PCNL, and mPCNL; six comparisons of PCNL and mPCNL, seven of mPCNL and RIRS, and 12 of RIRS and PCNL were analyzed. No difference was found between the stone-free rates of PCNL and mPCNL (odds ratio [OR]: 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-1.9) by network meta-analysis. However, the stone-free rate of RIRS was lower than that of mPCNL (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.021-0.82) and PCNL (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.22-0.82). Ranking analysis ranked mPCNL as No. 1 and PCNL as No. 2.

Conclusions

PCNL and mPCNL had better stone-free rates than RIRS for the treatment of renal stones, but the treatment outcomes of PCNL and mPCNL were no different.

Keywords: Ureteroscopy; Nephrostomy, Percutaneous; Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) was developed to treat pediatric patients with renal stones [1]. Helal et al. [2] first performed mPCNL in 1997 in a 2-year-old pediatric patient using a 15-Fr Hickman peel-away sheath. Currently, mPCNL is defined as PCNL performed using access sheaths of diameter 14-20 Fr [3] and has advantages over standard PCNL in terms of blood loss, postoperative pain, and renal parenchymal damage, which are complications associated with the larger instruments used for standard PCNL [4]. However, despite these advantages, mPCNL is not considered the preferred technique [5,6].

The European Association of Urology (EAU) Urolithiasis Guidelines state that mPCNL requires a longer operating time and recommend that additional studies be conducted to determine treatment outcomes [7]. Furthermore, these guidelines recommend extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) as first-line treatments for kidney stones <2 cm in diameter, and that PCNL be considered the first-line treatment for stones >2 cm [7]. For lower pole stones of 1-2 cm, endourologic procedures, including RIRS and PCNL, are recommended for patients with unfavorable factors for ESWL, which is the only non-invasive interventional treatment and plays a pivotal role in the treatment of urinary stones [8,9]. On the other hand, RIRS has the advantage of being less invasive than PCNL and mPCNL due to the use of a natural orifice [10]. PCNL remains the standard treatment for renal stones >2 cm and is considered the first treatment option for large stones resistant to shock waves [11]. mPCNL has fewer complications than PCNL when performed in selective patients [12]. Prospective studies and meta-analyses have compared PCNL, mPCNL, and RIRS and discussed their advantages and disadvantages. Network meta-analysis is a research method that enables direct and indirect comparisons of multiple treatments [13-15], but no network meta-analysis has been conducted to compare the outcomes of these three modalities simultaneously. Accordingly, we performed a systematic review and utilized network meta-analysis to compare the stone-free rates of PCNL, mPCNL, and RIRS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Inclusion Criteria

Publicly available randomized controlled trials that met the following criteria were included: (1) Evaluation of 2 or 3 arms, including PCNL, mPCNL, and RIRS for the treatment of kidney stones; (2) Baseline data on matched 2 or 3 patient groups, including the number of patients included and values of indices; (3) The use of stone-free rates to analyze treatment results; (4) The use of standard surgical indications for each treatment; (5) The inclusion of complication rates among endpoint outcomes; and (6) Publication in the English-lan-guage. This study was performed using the Preferred Reporting Item for System Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (accessible at http://www.prismastatement.org/) (Supplementary Table 1) [16].

2. Search Strategy

All literature searches were conducted using the PubMed and EMBASE databases before December 31, 2020. Cross-reference searches were also conducted to identify articles missed during the computerized literature search. The progress reports of relevant meetings were also reviewed. Medical Subject Headings (MeSHs) and keywords were searched using percutaneous nephrolithotomy, nephrolithotomy, percutaneous, flexible ureteroscopy, flexible, ureterorenoscopy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, renal stone, urolithiasis, success rate, miniature, mini, and stone-free.

3. Data Extraction

One author (JYL) screened all titles and abstracts found using the literature search. Two other authors (DHK and HDJ) independently analyzed all articles in detail to ensure that they met the inclusion criteria. Disagreements between the two researchers were resolved by discussion until consensus was reached or by third-party adjudication by another author (DYC).

4. Quality Assessment of Studies

When final articles were agreed, two researchers independently examined the quality of each article using the Downs and Black checklist, which was developed for the quality assessment of randomized and non-randomized studies on health interventions [17]. The checklist consists of five subscales, viz. reporting, internal validity bias, internal validity confounding, external validity, and power. Because six items were related to intervention, randomization, and power calculation, and not all studies included were randomized studies, scores of zero were allocated to these six items, as previously suggested [18]. Therefore, the maximum possible quality score was 31 points. Higher scores indicated better study qualities.

5. Heterogeneity Tests

Heterogeneity of included studies was examined using the Q statistic and Higgins I² statistic [19]. Higgins I² measures the percentage of total variation due to heterogeneity rather than chance across studies and was calculated as follows:

I2=Q−dfQ×100%

where 'Q' is Cochran's heterogeneity statistic, and 'df' is the number of degrees of freedom.

An I² value of ≥50% is considered to indicate substantial heterogeneity [20]. For the Q statistic, heterogeneity was deemed to be significant for p-values <0.10 [21]. When there was evidence of heterogeneity, data were analyzed using a random-effects model. Studies with confirmed positive results were assessed using pooled specificity and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In addition, Galbraith radial and L'Abbe plots were used to evaluate heterogeneity [22,23].

6. Statistical Analysis

Outcome variables measured at specific time points were compared using odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences with 95% CIs using network meta-analysis. Analyses were based on non-informative priors for effect sizes and precision. Convergence and lack of auto-correlation were confirmed after four chains and a 50,000-simulation burn-in phase. Finally, direct probability statements were derived from an additional 100,000-simulation phase. The probabilities that each modality had the lowest rate of clinical events were assessed by Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo modeling. Sensitivity analyses were performed by repeating the main computations using a fixed-effects model. Model fit was appraised by computing and comparing estimates for deviance and deviance information criteria. The statistical analysis was performed using R (R version 3.3.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; http://www. r-project.org) with associated meta, netmeta, pcnetmeta, and gemtc packages for pairwise and network meta-analyses.

RESULTS

1. Eligible Studies

A total of 289 studies were originally identified. After screening, 46 articles were assessed for eligibility, and 16 of these studies were excluded for the following reasons: 6 articles did not have data on stone-free rates, 11 articles were review articles, and 4 articles were case report series. Finally, the remaining 25 studies were included in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Flow diagram of evidence acquisition. Twenty-five studies were ultimately included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses that involved pairwise and network meta-analyses.

Data associated with confounding factors derived from each study are summarized in Table 1. Eight studies compared PCNL and mPCNL [5,24-30], ten trials reported PCNL and RIRS outcomes [31-40], and seven studies compared mPCNL and RIRS outcomes [41-47] (Fig. 2). Table 1 provides a summary of the data, including stone-free rates, of the enrolled studies.

Table 1

Studies included in the meta-analysis

Fig. 2

Network plots for the included studies. Eight studies compared percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus miniature percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL), seven trials reported the outcomes of mPCNL and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and ten studies compared the outcomes of PCNL and RIRS.

2. Quality Assessment

The results of quality assessments based on the Downs and Black checklist are shown in Table 1. Median total quality score was 15.12. Overall, quality scores within subscales were low to moderate. In particular, external validity was unsatisfactory for PCNL, mPCNL, and RIRS comparisons found to be significantly and non-significantly different.

3. Heterogeneity and Inconsistency Assessments and Publication Bias

Forest plots of the pairwise meta-analyses of mPCNL, PCNL, and RIRS are shown in Fig. 3-5. No heterogeneity was observed between PCNL and RIRS (Fig. 3); however, heterogeneity was observed between mPCNL and PCNL (I²=51.0%, p=0.05; Fig. 4), and between mPCNL and RIRS (I²=51.0%, p=0.06; Fig. 5). Thus, the random-effects model was applied using the Mantel–Haenszel method to compare mPCNL and PCNL and mPCNL and RIRS (Fig. 4, 5). After the selection of effect models, little heterogeneity was observed in L'Abbe or radial plots (Fig. 6, 7). Inconsistency was not demonstrated by node-splitting analysis for direct, indirect, or network comparisons (Fig. 8).

Fig. 3

Pairwise meta-analysis of the success rates of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Pooled data showed a signiﬁcantly higher stone-free rate for PCNL than RIRS (odds ratio [OR]: 2.31; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.45-3.67; p<0.001).

Fig. 5

Pairwise meta-analysis of the success rates of miniature percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). The stone-free rate of mPCNL was not greater than that of RIRS (odds ratio [OR]: 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-4.72; p=0.07).

Fig. 4

Pairwise meta-analysis of the success rates of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and miniature percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL). The stone-free rates of these two modalities were no different (odds ratio [OR]: 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-1.71; p=0.73).

Fig. 6

L’Abbe plots of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) (A), miniature percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) and PCNL (B), and RIRS and mPCNL (C) success rates.

Fig. 7

Radical plots of retrograde intrarenal surger (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) (A), miniature percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) and PCNL (B), and RIRS and mPCNL (C) success rates.

Fig. 8

Network meta-analysis of miniature percutaneous nephro-lithotomy (mPCNL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) success rate and node-splitting analyses of inconsistency.

The Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation tests showed no evidence of publication bias in the present meta-analysis between PCNL and RIRS (p=0.79), PCNL and mPCNL (p=0.81), or mPCNL and RIRS (p=0.45). Similarly, Egger’s regression intercept tests showed no publication bias between PCNL and RIRS (p=0.87), PCNL and mPCNL (p=0.99), or mPCNL and RIRS (p=0.56). In addition, little evidence of publication bias was detected in funnel plots for these comparisons (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9

Rank-probability test of network meta-analyses. The rank-probability test ranked miniature percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) as No. 1 and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) as No. 3. PCNL: percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

4. Pairwise Meta-Analysis of PCNL, mPCNL, and RIRS with Respect to Stone-Free Rate

Pooled data showed a signiﬁcantly higher stone-free rate after PCNL (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 1.45-3.67; p<0.001) than after RIRS (Fig. 3). No difference between stone-free rates after PCNL or mPCNL (OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.46-1.71; p=0.73) (Fig. 4), and a non-significantly higher stone-free rate after mPCNL than after RIRS (OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 0.95-4.72; p=0.07) (Fig. 5).

5. Network Meta-Analysis of mPCNL, PCNL, and RIRS with Respect to Stone-free Rate

Network meta-analyses showed stone-free rates were similar after PCNL or mPCNL (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.51-1.9). The stone-free rate after RIRS was lower than after mPCNL or PCNL (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.21-0.82 and OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.22-0.82, respectively) (Fig. 8). The rank-probability test ranked mPCNL as No. 1 and RIRS as No. 3 (Fig. 10). The P-score test using the frequentist method to rank treatments in a network demonstrated that mPCNL (P-score: 0.820) was superior to PCNL (P-score: 0.680) and RIRS (P-score: 0) with respect to stone-free rate [48].

Fig. 10

Funnel plots of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) (A), miniature percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) and PCNL (B), and RIRS and mPCNL (C) success rates.

6. Network Meta-Analysis of mPCNL, PCNL, and RIRS with Respect to Length of Stay (LOS) and Operation Time

Thirteen studies had data regarding LOSs for two treatments. Five studies compared PCNL and mPCNL, seven studies compared PCNL and RIRS, and one study compared RIRS and mPCNL. In this network analysis, LOSs of patients treated by mPCNL (mean difference [MD]: -1.668; 95% CI: -2.311 to -1.320) or RIRS (MD: -1.281; 95% CI: -1.930 to -0.812) were shorter than for those treated by PCNL. No difference was detected between LOSs after mPCNL or RIRS (MD: -0.413; 95% CI: -1.188 to 0.386). The data of 21 studies were used to compare operation times. PCNL operation time was shorter than that of mPCNL (MD: -11.360; 95% CI: -14.290 to -7.455) and RIRS (MD: -7.224; 95% CI: -11.320 to -4.382), and operation time was shorter for RIRS than mPCNL (MD: -3.519; 95% CI: -5.442 to -2.175) (Table 2).

Table 2

Subgroup network meta-analysis of lengths of stay and operation times (odds ratio and 95% credible interval)

7. Complication Rates according to the Clavien–Dindo Classification

Based on 23 studies, complication rates for mPCNL, PCNL, and RIRS were 19.0, 22.7, and 17.4, respectively. Major complication rates among all complication cases for PCNL, mPCNL, and RIRS were 7.4%, 12.5%, and 14.4%, respectively. However, no significant difference was found (p=0.13) (Table 3).

Table 3

Complication rates of studies graded according to the Clavien–Dindo classification

DISCUSSION

Renal stones are one of the most common urological diseases and are characterized by high recurrence rates [49]. In cases of asymptomatic, tiny renal stones, observation can be performed without treatment. However, if a stone causes obstruction or infection, is associated with symptoms, such as pain or hematuria, or has a high probability of size increase, treatment is recommended. Interventional treatment for renal stones may be considered if a stone is greater than 1.5 cm or stone removal is necessary for social reasons. The EAU guideline recommends ESWL or RIRS as first-line treatments for kidney stones <2 cm in diameter and PCNL as the first-line treatment for stones >2 cm [7]. As regards surgical procedures, PCNL and RIRS have associated anesthetic burdens, and their invasivenesses are a disadvantage, but stone-free rates of PCNL and RIRS are higher than those of ESWL [50]. The development of surgical techniques and instruments continues to play a major role in the popularization of PCNL and RIRS [49,51]. mPCNL is defined as PCNL performed using Amplantz sheaths of diameter 14-20 Fr [3,52] and has the advantage of reducing complications that may arise due to the use of larger instruments and sheaths [4].

Evaluations of perioperative and postoperative outcomes after surgical treatment of renal stones are essential. Stone-free rates, operative times, and complications may be appropriate indicators of perioperative and postoperative outcomes. Among these indicators, stone-free rate may be one of the most important outcomes in terms of avoiding the need for auxiliary treatment and complications related to residual fragments. Stone-free rate is correlated with stone burden, but notably, differences have been reported between procedures [53]. Furthermore, stone-free rate is the best indicator of the efficacy of different approaches [54]. According to previous reports, PCNL and mPCNL have higher stone-free rates than RIRS, although various imaging modalities were used.

In 2017, Kang et al. [55] conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, in which updated evidence of stone-free rates after RIRS and PCNL for >2-cm renal stones were compared with a previous report. In their meta-analysis of stone-free rates, a forest plot produced using the random-effects model showed a risk ratio of 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02-1.21; p=0.01) in favor of PCNL. In 2014, Zheng et al. [56], in a meta-analysis, reported no difference between RIRS and PCNL in terms of stone-free rates for >2-cm renal stones. Kang et al. [55] conducted a meta-analysis on the study by Zheng et al. [56] and three additional articles, and all three additional studies reported lower stone-free rates after RIRS than after PCNL. Zhang et al. [57] examined the efﬁcacy and safety of RIRS, PCNL, and SWL for the management of lower pole renal stones and concluded that PCNL is associated with the highest stone-free rate but at the expense of hospital stay. In 2015, Zhu et al. [58] performed meta-analysis on stone-free rates after mPCNL and PCNL and concluded that mPCNL is safe and effective with a stone-free rate comparable to that of PCNL. In addition, they found that mPCNL resulted in less bleeding, fewer transfusions, less pain, and shorter hospitalization. Another recent systematic review demonstrated that the smaller tracts used during mPCNL tend to be associated with significantly lower blood loss and the need for blood transfusion, but at the cost of a significantly longer procedure than standard PCNL [59]. The results of our study support these previous findings. Network meta-analysis showed that in terms of LOS, mPCNL and RIRS were superior to PCNL. However, regarding stone-free rates, mPCNL and PCNL were superior to RIRS, and no difference was found between mPCNL and PCNL (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.51-1.9).

mPCNL is likely to be developed further because of the popularization of dilating instruments and the recently released miniature nephroscope and irrigation system. In 1998, Jackman et al. [60] used a 6.9-Fr rigid ureteroscope, a 7.2-Flexible ureteroscope, and a 7.7-Fr rigid offset pediatric cystoscope. MIP-M by Nagele et al. [51] (Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany) and Miniperc by Lahme et al. [6] (Richard Wolff, Knittlingen, Germany) are miniature nephroscopic instruments with a typical single-step dilating system. In addition, mPCNL often provides even higher stone-free rates than conventional PCNL, perhaps because of the vacuum-cleaner effect [61].

The American Urological Association and the EAU have not presented specific recommendations for the use of mPCNL to treat renal stones. However, previously reported evidence shows that mPCNL can achieve outcomes similar to that of standard PCNL for renal stones >2 cm [24]. RIRS requires insertion of a flexible ureteroscope through a natural orifice and maybe a competitor of mPCNL for the treatment of renal stones, but not Staghorn stones [59]. However, it is clear the stone-free rate of mPCNL is superior to that of RIRS and that stones can be removed easily by mPCNL due to its vacuum-cleaner effect. On the other hand, the longer operation time of mPCNL may be a major disadvantage. In our network meta-analysis, the operation time of mPCNL was greater than those of PCNL and RIRS, and although no significant difference was observed between the complication rates of the three modalities, the total number of complications after PCNL was higher than after mPCNL and RIRS. A well-designed, prospective study is needed to provide a better understanding of the use of mPCNL and to explore its potential to replace PCNL.

CONCLUSIONS

Summarizing, PCNL and mPCNL had the highest stone-free rates for the surgical treatment of renal stones, and RIRS had the lowest stone-free rate and the lowest rank by the rank-probability test. Patient selection should be performed based on case complexity, and a well-designed prospective study is needed to improve understanding of the use of mPCNL.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary data can be found via https://doi.org/10.14777/uti.2022.17.1.14.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by Inha University Research Grant. All relevant data are provided within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS

D.H.K. participated in literature search, data aquisition, data analysis, statstical analysis and manuscript preparation. K.S.C. participated in manuscript review. D.Y.C. and D.K.K. participated in statstical analysis and manuscript editing. W.S.J. and H.D.J. participated in literature search, data aquisition and manuscript editing. J.Y.L. participated in study concept, design, literature search, data aquisition, data analysis, statstical analysis and manuscript review. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

References

1. Hennessey DB, Kinnear NK, Troy A, Angus D, Bolton DM, Webb DR. Mini PCNL for renal calculi: does size matter? BJU Int 2017;119 Suppl 5:39–46. 10.1111/bju.13839. 28544299.

2. Helal M, Black T, Lockhart J, Figueroa TE. The Hickman peel-away sheath: alternative for pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 1997;11:171–2. 10.1089/end.1997.11.171. 9181444.

3. Gadzhiev N, Sergei B, Grigoryev V, Okhunov Z, Ganpule A, Pisarev A, et al. Evaluation of the effect of Bernoulli maneuver on operative time during mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized study. Investig Clin Urol 2017;58:179–85. 10.4111/icu.2017.58.3.179. 28480343. PMC5419106.

4. Sakr A, Salem E, Kamel M, Desoky E, Ragab A, Omran M, et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs standard PCNL for management of renal stones in the flank-free modified supine position: single-center experience. Uroli-thiasis 2017;45:585–9. 10.1007/s00240-017-0966-1. 28229197.

5. Giusti G, Piccinelli A, Taverna G, Benetti A, Pasini L, Corinti M, et al. Miniperc? Eur Urol 2007;51:810–4. 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.07.047. 16938385.

6. Lahme S, Bichler KH, Strohmaier WL, Gotz T. Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stones. Eur Urol 2001;40:619–24. 10.1159/000049847. 11805407.

7. Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016;69:475–82. 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041. 26344917.

8. Lawler AC, Ghiraldi EM, Tong C, Friedlander JI. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy: current perspectives and future directions. Curr Urol Rep 2017;18:25. 10.1007/s11934-017-0672-0. 28247327.

9. Kang HW, Cho KS, Ham WS, Kang DH, Jung HD, Kwon JK, et al. Predictive factors and treatment outcomes of Steinstrasse following shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: a Bayesian regression model analysis. Investig Clin Urol 2018;59:112–8. 10.4111/icu.2018.59.2.112. 29520387. PMC5840115.

10. Han DH, Jeon SH. Stone-breaking and retrieval strategy during retrograde intrarenal surgery. Investig Clin Urol 2016;57:229–30. 10.4111/icu.2016.57.4.229. 27437531. PMC4949690.

11. Lee JY, Jeh SU, Kim MD, Kang DH, Kwon JK, Ham WS, et al. Intraoperative and postoperative feasibility and safety of total tubeless, tubeless, small-bore tube, and standard percuta-neous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials. BMC Urol 2017;17:48. 10.1186/s12894-017-0239-x. 28655317. PMC5488341.

12. Lu Y, Ping JG, Zhao XJ, Hu LK, Pu JX. Randomized prospective trial of tubeless versus conventional minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 2013;31:1303–7. 10.1007/s00345-012-0921-2. 22903789.

13. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005;331:897–900. 10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897. 16223826. PMC1255806.

14. Mills EJ, Thorlund K, Ioannidis JP. Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2013;346:f2914. 10.1136/bmj.f2914. 23674332.

15. Kang DH, Cho KS, Ham WS, Lee H, Kwon JK, Choi YD, et al. Comparison of high, intermediate, and low frequency shock wave lithotripsy for urinary tract stone disease: systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS One 2016;11:e0158661. 10.1371/journal.pone.0158661. 27387279. PMC4936716.

16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. 19621072. PMC2707599.

17. Nomura K, Nakao M, Morimoto T. Effect of smoking on hearing loss: quality assessment and meta-analysis. Prev Med 2005;40:138–44. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.05.011. 15533522.

18. Macfarlane TV, Glenny AM, Worthington HV. Systematic review of population-based epidemiological studies of oro-facial pain. J Dent 2001;29:451–67. 10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00041-0.

19. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–60. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. 12958120. PMC192859.

20. Lee JY, Kang DH, Chung DY, Kwon JK, Lee H, Cho NH, et al. Meta-analysis of the relationship between CXCR4 expression and metastasis in prostate cancer. World J Mens Health 2014;32:167–75. 10.5534/wjmh.2014.32.3.167. 25606566. PMC4298820.

21. Fleiss JL. Analysis of data from multiclinic trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:267–75. 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90034-6.

22. L'Abbe KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med 1987;107:224–33. 10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-224. 3300460.

23. Galbraith RF. A note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several clinical trials. Stat Med 1988;7:889–94. 10.1002/sim.4780070807. 3413368.

24. Cheng F, Yu W, Zhang X, Yang S, Xia Y, Ruan Y. Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones. J Endourol 2010;24:1579–82. 10.1089/end.2009.0581. 20839954.

25. Knoll T, Wezel F, Michel MS, Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G. Do patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? J Endourol 2010;24:1075–9. 10.1089/end.2010.0111. 20575685.

26. Li LY, Gao X, Yang M, Li JF, Zhang HB, Xu WF, et al. Does a smaller tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy contribute to less invasiveness? Urology 2010;75:56–61. 10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.006. 19800671.

27. Mishra S, Sharma R, Garg C, Kurien A, Sabnis R, Desai M. Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int 2011;108:896–9. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09936.x. 21477212.

28. Song L, Chen Z, Liu T, Zhong J, Qin W, Guo S, et al. The application of a patented system to minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2011;25:1281–6. 10.1089/end.2011.0032. 21745116.

29. Zhong W, Zeng G, Wu W, Chen W, Wu K. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy with multiple mini tracts in a single session in treating staghorn calculi. Urol Res 2011;39:117–22. 10.1007/s00240-010-0308-z. 20821200.

30. Xu S, Shi H, Zhu J, Wang Y, Cao Y, Li K, et al. A prospective comparative study of haemodynamic, electrolyte, and metabolic changes during percutaneous nephrolithotomy and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 2014;32:1275–80. 10.1007/s00345-013-1204-2. 24177788.

31. Hyams ES, Shah O. Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy/holmium laser lithotripsy: cost and outcome analysis. J Urol 2009;182:1012–7. 10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.021. 19616804.

32. Akman T, Binbay M, Ozgor F, Ugurlu M, Tekinarslan E, Kezer C, et al. Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde flexible nephrolithotripsy for the management of 2-4 cm stones: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int 2012;109:1384–9. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10691.x. 22093679.

33. Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y, Can CE, Unsal A. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol 2011;25:1131–5. 10.1089/end.2010.0737. 21657824.

34. Aboutaleb H, El-Shazly M, Badr Eldin M. Lower pole midsize (1-2 cm) calyceal stones: outcome analysis of 56 cases. Urol Int 2012;89:348–54. 10.1159/000341557. 22922771.

35. Bryniarski P, Paradysz A, Zyczkowski M, Kupilas A, Nowakowski K, Bogacki R. A randomized controlled study to analyze the safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephroli-thotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the management of renal stones more than 2 cm in diameter. J Endourol 2012;26:52–7. 10.1089/end.2011.0235. 22003819.

36. Ozturk U, Sener NC, Goktug HN, Nalbant I, Gucuk A, Imamoglu MA. Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, shock wave lithotripsy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi 10-20 mm. Urol Int 2013;91:345–9. 10.1159/000351136. 23816573.

37. Resorlu B, Unsal A, Ziypak T, Diri A, Atis G, Guven S, et al. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones. World J Urol 2013;31:1581–6. 10.1007/s00345-012-0991-1. 23179732.

38. Bas O, Bakirtas H, Sener NC, Ozturk U, Tuygun C, Goktug HN, et al. Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, flexible uretero-renoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on moderate size renal pelvis stones. Urolithiasis 2014;42:115–20. 10.1007/s00240-013-0615-2. 24162954.

39. Jung GH, Jung JH, Ahn TS, Lee JS, Cho SY, Jeong CW, et al. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery versus a single-session percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole stones with a diameter of 15 to 30 mm: a propensity score-matching study. Korean J Urol 2015;56:525–32. 10.4111/kju.2015.56.7.525. 26175872. PMC4500810.

40. Karakoyunlu N, Goktug G, Sener NC, Zengin K, Nalbant I, Ozturk U, et al. A comparison of standard PCNL and staged retrograde FURS in pelvis stones over 2 cm in diameter: a prospective randomized study. Urolithiasis 2015;43:283–7. 10.1007/s00240-015-0768-2. 25838180.

41. Resorlu B, Unsal A, Tepeler A, Atis G, Tokatli Z, Oztuna D, et al. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percu-taneous nephrolithotomy in children with moderate-size kidney stones: results of multi-institutional analysis. Urology 2012;80:519–23. 10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.018. 22673546.

42. Kirac M, Bozkurt OF, Tunc L, Guneri C, Unsal A, Biri H. Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percu-taneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of smaller than 15 mm. Urolithiasis 2013;41:241–6. 10.1007/s00240-013-0552-0. 23483226.

43. Pan J, Chen Q, Xue W, Chen Y, Xia L, Chen H, et al. RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2-3 cm: clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting. Urolithiasis 2013;41:73–8. 10.1007/s00240-012-0533-8. 23532427.

44. Sabnis RB, Jagtap J, Mishra S, Desai M. Treating renal calculi 1-2 cm in diameter with minipercutaneous or retrograde intrarenal surgery: a prospective comparative study. BJU Int 2012;110(8 Pt B):E346–9. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11089.x. 22487401.

45. Kumar A, Kumar N, Vasudeva P, Kumar Jha S, Kumar R, Singh H. A prospective, randomized comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and miniperc for treatment of 1 to 2 cm radiolucent lower calyceal renal calculi: a single center experience. J Urol 2015;193:160–4. 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.088. 25066869.

46. Lee JW, Park J, Lee SB, Son H, Cho SY, Jeong H. Mini-percu-taneous nephrolithotomy vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones larger than 10 mm: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Urology 2015;86:873–7. 10.1016/j.urology.2015.08.011. 26320082.

47. Zeng G, Zhu W, Li J, Zhao Z, Zeng T, Liu C, et al. The comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for stones larger than 2 cm in patients with a solitary kidney: a matched-pair analysis. World J Urol 2015;33:1159–64. 10.1007/s00345-014-1420-4. 25331936.

48. Rucker G, Schwarzer G. Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods. BMC Med Res Methodol 2015;15:58. 10.1186/s12874-015-0060-8. 26227148. PMC4521472.

49. Jeong JY, Kim JC, Kang DH, Lee JY. Digital videoscopic retrograde intrarenal surgeries for renal stones: time-to-maxi-mal stone length ratio analysis. Yonsei Med J 2018;59:303–9. 10.3349/ymj.2018.59.2.303. 29436200. PMC5823834.

50. Jung HD, Kim JC, Ahn HK, Kwon JH, Han K, Han WK, et al. Real-time simultaneous endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery with intermediate-supine position: washout mechanism and transport technique. Investig Clin Urol 2018;59:348–54. 10.4111/icu.2018.59.5.348. 30182081. PMC6121022.

51. Nagele U, Horstmann M, Sievert KD, Kuczyk MA, Walcher U, Hennenlotter J, et al. A newly designed amplatz sheath decreases intrapelvic irrigation pressure during mini-percu-taneous nephrolitholapaxy: an in-vitro pressure-measurement and microscopic study. J Endourol 2007;21:1113–6. 10.1089/end.2006.0230. 17941796.

52. Loftus CJ, Hinck B, Makovey I, Sivalingam S, Monga M. Mini versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the impact of sheath size on intrarenal pelvic pressure and infectious complications in a porcine model. J Endourol 2018;32:350–3. 10.1089/end.2017.0602. 29385812.

53. Atalay HA, Canat L, Bayraktarli R, Alkan I, Can O, Altunrende F. Evaluation of stone volume distribution in renal collecting system as a predictor of stone-free rate after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a retrospective single-center study. Uroli-thiasis 2018;46:303–9. 10.1007/s00240-017-0995-9. 28646306.

54. Jiang H, Yu Z, Chen L, Wang T, Liu Z, Liu J, et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for upper urinary stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:2035851. 10.1155/2017/2035851. 28553645. PMC5434463.

55. Kang SK, Cho KS, Kang DH, Jung HD, Kwon JK, Lee JY. Systematic review and meta-analysis to compare success rates of retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous neph-rolithotomy for renal stones >2 cm: an update. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e9119. 10.1097/MD.0000000000009119. 29245347. PMC5728962.

56. Zheng C, Xiong B, Wang H, Luo J, Zhang C, Wei W, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephroli-thotomy for treatment of renal stones >2 cm: a meta-analysis. Urol Int 2014;93:417–24. 10.1159/000363509. 25170589.

57. Zhang W, Zhou T, Wu T, Gao X, Peng Y, Xu C, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole renal stones: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Endourol 2015;29:745–59. 10.1089/end.2014.0799. 25531986.

58. Zhu W, Liu Y, Liu L, Lei M, Yuan J, Wan SP, et al. Minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 2015;43:563–70. 10.1007/s00240-015-0808-y. 26242465.

59. Proietti S, Giusti G, Desai M, Ganpule AP. A critical review of miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is smaller better? Eur Urol Focus 2017;3:56–61. 10.1016/j.euf.2017.05.001. 28720368.

60. Jackman SV, Docimo SG, Cadeddu JA, Bishoff JT, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW. The "mini-perc" technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 1998;16:371–4. 10.1007/s003450050083. 9870281.

61. Nicklas AP, Schilling D, Bader MJ, Herrmann TR. Nagele U; Training. Research in Urological Surgery. Technology (T. R. World J Urol 2015;33:1847–53. 10.1007/s00345-015-1541-4. 25833660.

Article information Continued

(open-access) :

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Category	Study	Year	Design	Methods	Inclusion criteria	No. of points	Follow-up	Definition of stone free	No. of stone-free patients	Stone-free rate	Quality assessment
PCNL vs. mPCNL	Giusti et al. [5]	2007	Retrospective	PCNL	Renal stone <2 cm	67	1 month	Not stated	63	94.0	13
				mPCNL		40			31	77.5
	Cheng et al. [24]	2010	RCT	PCNL	Renal stone	115	1 week	<4 mm	92	80.0	14
				mPCNL		72			61	84.7
	Knoll et al. [25]	2010	Prospective, case control	PCNL mPCNL	Solitary calculi (lower pole or pelvis)	25 25	1 day	Not stated	23 24	92.0 96.0	13
	Li et al. [26]	2010	Prospective, case control	PCNL mPCNL	Renal stone	72 93	Not stated	Not stated	63 78	87.5 83.9	13
	Mishra et al. [27]	2011	Prospective, case control	PCNL mPCNL	Renal stone 1 to 2 cm	26 26	1 month	Radiologic absence of stone	26 25	100.0 96.2	14
	Song et al. [28]	2011	RCT	PCNL	Renal stone ≥2 cm	30	3-5 days	Not stated	22	73.3	17
				mPCNL		30			27	90.0
	Zhong et al. [29]	2011	RCT	PCNL mPCNL	Staghorn calculi	25 29	1 day	Radiologic absence of stone	14 24	56.0 82.8	18
	Xu et al. [30]	2014	Prospective, case control	PCNL mPCNL	Renal stone	34 37	Not stated	Not stated	27 29	79.4 78.4	17
mPCNL vs. RIRS	Resorlu et al. [41]	2012	Retrospective	mPCNL RIRS	1- to 3-cm, renal stone, children	106 95	1 month	Not stated	100 88	94.3 92.6	14
	Kirac et al. [42]	2013	Retrospective	mPCNL RIRS	<1.5-cm, lower pole renal stone	37 36	3 months	No fragments	33 32	89.2 88.9	14
	Pan et al. [43]	2013	Retrospective	mPCNL RIRS	2- to 3-cm, solitary renal calculi	59 56	1 month	<2 mm	57 40	96.6 71.4	15
	Sabnis et al. [44]	2012	Prospective, case control	mPCNL RIRS	1- to 2-cm renal stone	32 32	1 month	No fragments	32 31	100.0 96.9	14
	Kumar et al. [45]	2015	RCT	mPCNL RIRS	Lower calyceal radiolucent, 1 to 2 cm	41 43	3 months	Not stated	39 37	95.1 86.0	17
	Lee et al. [46]	2015	RCT	mPCNL	>1-cm renal stone	35	3 months	<2 mm	30	85.7	19
				RIRS		33			32	97.0
	Zeng et al. [47]	2015	Retrospective	mPCNL RIRS	>2 cm, solitary renal stone	53 53	3 weeks	<4 mm	38 23	71.7 43.4	14
PCNL vs. RIRS	Hyams et al. [31]	2009	Retrospective	PCNL	2- to 3-cm renal stone	20	3 months	< 4 mm	20	100.0	13
				RIRS		19			18	94.7
	Akman et al. [32]	2012	Retrospective	PCNL	2- to 4-cm renal stone	34	3 months	Not stated	33	97.1	14
				RIRS		34			32	94.1
	Bozkurt et al. [33]	2011	Retrospective	PCNL RIRS	1.5- to 2-cm renal stone	42 37	After two procedures	Not stated	41 35	97.6 94.6	13
	Aboutaleb et al. [34]	2012	Retrospective	PCNL RIRS	1- to 2-cm lower caliceal stone	19 13	2 days	<3 mm	17 11	89.5 84.6	15
	Bryniarski et al. [35]	2012	RCT	PCNL RIRS	Renal pelvis stone ≥2 cm	32 32	3 weeks	Not stated	30 24	93.8 75.0	14
	Ozturk et al. [36]	2013	Retrospective	PCNL RIRS	1- to 2-cm lower renal stone	144 38	Not stated	<3 mm	135 28	93.8 73.7	16
	Resorlu et al. [37]	2013	Retrospective	PCNL RIRS	1- to 2-cm radiolucent renal calculi	140 46	After one procedure	Not stated	128 40	91.4 87.0	17
	Bas et al. [38]	2014	Retrospective	PCNL RIRS	1- to 2-cm renal pelvis stone	50 47	1 month	Not stated	49 43	98.0 91.5	17
	Jung et al. [39]	2015	Retrospective	PCNL RIRS	15- to 30-mm lower pole stone	44 44	1 month	<3 mm	37 41	84.1 93.2	16
	Karakoyunlu et al. [40]	2015	RCT	PCNL RIRS	Renal pelvis stone >2 cm	30 30	Final procedures	Complete removal	26 20	86.7 66.7	17

Length of stay	mPCNL	PCNL	RIRS
mPCNL	-	-1.668 (-2.311 to -1.320)	-0.413 (-1.188 to 0.386)
PCNL	1.668 (1.3200 to 2.3110)	-	1.281 (0.812 to 1.930)
RIRS	0.413 (-0.386 to 1.188)	-1.281 (-1.930 to -0.812)	-
Operation time	mPCNL	PCNL	RIRS
mPCNL	-	11.360 (7.455 to 14.290)	3.519 (2.175 to 5.442)
PCNL	-11.360 (-14.290 to -7.455)	-	-7.224 (-11.320 to -4.382)
RIRS	-3.519 (-5.442 to -2.175)	7.224 (4.382 to 11.320)	-

Methods		Complications
Methods		Total		Clavien Grade I-II (Minor)		Clavien Grade III-IV (Major)
No. of patients		n	%	n	%	n	%
mPCNL	675	128	19.0	112	87.5	16	12.5
PCNL	830	188	22.7	174	92.6	14	7.4
RIRS	637	111	17.4	95	85.6	16	14.4