Table 3.
Comparative studies between mini-PCNL/micro-PCNL and RIRS
| Mini-PCNL versus RIRS: comparison | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||
| Authors | Study design | Number of cases | SFR (%) | Operative time (min) | Hospital stay (days) | Drop in Hb (g/dL) | Blood transfusion (%) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
| Mini | RIRS | Mini | RIRS | Mini | RIRS | Mini | RIRS | Mini | RIRS | Mini | RIRS | ||
| Fayad et al.[27] | Randomized | 60 | 60 | 92.7 | 84.3 | 71.7 | 109.7 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 0.28 | 0.13 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Xiao-Jian et al.[28] | Randomized | 30 | 29 | 100 | 89.7 | / | / | 4.6 | 1.9 | / | / | 0 | 0 |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Kumar et al.[29] | Randomized | 41 | 43 | 95.1 | 86.1 | 61.1 | 47.5 | 3.1 | 1.3 | / | / | 12.9 | 0 |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Lee et al.[30] | Randomized | 35 | 33 | 85.7 | 97 | 76.1 | 99.6 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 0.69 | 0.38 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Micro-PCNL versus RIRS: comparison | |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Authors | Study design | Number of cases | SFR (%) | Operative time (min) | Hospital stay (days) | Drop in Hb (g/dL) | Blood transfusion (%) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
| Micro | RIRS | Micro | RIRS | Micro | RIRS | Micro | RIRS | Micro | RIRS | Micro | RIRS | ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Jiang et al.[31] | Randomized | 58 | 58 | 84.5 | 79.3 | 54 | 60.3 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 0 | 0 |
Statistically significant values are expressed in bold. PCNL: percutaneous nephrolithotomy; RIRS: retrograde intrarenal surgery; SFR: Stone-free rate; Mini: mini-PCNL; Micro: micro-PCNL.