Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent supine PCNL operation between 2018 and 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographic characteristics including age, body mass index, ASA score, stone size, presence of anatomical abnormalities and comorbidities, preoperative and postoperative data, and emergency department visit and readmission rates were analysed. ER to HR, including elective ones, and ER visits for any reason related to the PNL procedure were primarily analysed. Factors affecting the rate of ER visit and HR were analysed using logistic regression analysis.
Results: The mean age of 450 patients who underwent supine PCNL was 42.1 ± 20.8 years. When SFR was accepted in < 4 mm fragments, the SFR rate was 87%. Complications were observed in 19.5% of patients. ER rate was 8.8% and HR rate was 7.7%. Anatomical abnormality, stone complexity, operation time and postoperative complications were statistically significant for ER, while comorbidity, high ASA score, anomalous kidney, stone complexity, long operation time and postoperative complications were statistically significant for HR.
Conclusion: In our study, unplanned hospitalization was observed at a higher rate in patients with anatomical abnormalities and complex kidney stones. HR and ER were found more frequently in patients with a history of complications.
Age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores of the patients were retrospectively analyzed. Preoperatively non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) scans were performed to assess size, burden, density, location and number of the stones. Any anatomical abnormality was also evaluated. All patients underwent PCNL in the supine position. Duration of perioperative period and the number of accesses were recorded. Postoperatively, stone-free status (SFR) was evaluated by kidney-ureter-bladder (KUB) graphy and NCCT scans. Stones measuring >4 mm were considered as residual stones, and those smaller than 4 mm as clinically insignificant stones. The duration of hospitalisation was recorded.
Elective and emergency department, admissions for any indication related to the PCNL procedures were primarily analysed. HRs were defined as PCNL- related rehospitalizations occurring within 30 days of surgery. In addition, rehospitalisations for further treatment were recorded, but patients undergoing a second urological surgery including PCNL and/or ureterorenoscopy, were excluded. All PCNL procedures were performed by surgical teams experienced in endourological methods. PCNL procedures were routinely achieved as a one-step procedure through a percutaneous renal tract created by the urologist. Operative time is the time period elapsed between renal puncture and removal of the percutaneous lithoteiptor from the kidney.
Complications were classified using the Clavien Dindo classification system adapted to the PCNL procedure [5].
PCNL Procedure
All patients were positioned in modified Galdakao position
after general anesthesia. A 5F ureteral catheter was inserted over a guidewire under the guidance of ureterorenoscopy. Retrograde
pyelography was performed to visualize the pelvicalyceal system.
After calyceal dilatation, accessory tract into the appropriate
calyx was created under fluoroscopic monitoring. Afterwards,
serial dilatations were performed using plastic dilators and then a
30 F Amplatz access sheath was placed. Intra-renal visualization
was performed with a 28F nephroscope (KarlStorz GmbH &
Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany) and the stone was fragmented
with a pneumatic lithotripter. The fragments were retrieved
with appropriate stone forceps. Before terminating the surgical
procedure, a 14F nephrostomy catheter was placed in the renal
pelvis. A DJ stent was also placed according to the surgeon's
preference and rest stone status.
Statistical Analysis
Data of the study participants were statistically analyzed
using statistical package of IBM SPSS version 20.0. Numerical
variables are presented as mean and standard deviation,
categorical variables as numbers and percentages. Demographic
and operative data were compared using chi-square and Mann-
Whitney U tests. Independent predictors of HRs and ER
admissions were identified by multiple binary logistic regression
analysis. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Table 1. Demographic measures of the patients enrolled into the study
Perioperative and postoperative data showed that the mean operation time was 65.2 ± 30.4 minutes. An average of 1.2 ± 0.5 access tracts were performed for intrarenal access. The mean hospital stay was 2.1 ± 1.3 days. When SFR was defined as residual fragments <4 mm, the SFR rate was 87%. Complications were observed in 19.5% of patients. Rates of ER, and hospital readmissions, were 8.8% and 7.7%, respectively. Perioperative and postoperative variables and outcomes are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Perioperative variables and outcomes
Clavien Grade 1 complications were observed in 36 (7.8%) patients. The majority of these complications consisted of febrile episodes. Clavien grade 2, 3A, 3B, and 4 complications were observed in 31 (6.8%), 12 (2.6%), 4 (0.8%), and 5 (1.1%) patients, respectively. While Clavien Grade 5 complications were not observed in any patient. The data related to complications are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Categorization of the perioperative complications
Univariate analysis of the factors related to ER admissions and HRs showed that comorbidity, anatomical abnormality, stone complexity, operation time and postoperative complications were statistically significant factors affecting ER, while comorbidity, high ASA scores, presence of anomalous kidney, stone complexity, prolonged operation time and postoperative complications were statistically significant factors adversely effecting hospital readmissions. Results of the univariate analysis of the factors affecting the ER admission and HR rates are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Univariate analysis of the factors affecting the ER visit and HR rate
Prolonged operation time is one of the factors that increase the duration of complications and readmission rates during the postoperative period. Sugihara et al. reported that the risk of complications increased if the operation time was longer than 60 min in patients undergoing PCNL. They also stated that prolonged operation time increased the risk of postoperative fever and septicemia [18]. Oner et al. [19] examined the factors increasing complications rates in PCNL operations. They indicated that complications were seen more frequently in procedures exceeding the cut-off limit of 67 minutes determined for PCNL surgery. Lopes et al. [20] reported the rate of bleeding after PCNL as 6.7-9.4% and bleeding after PCNL was seen more frequently in patients with prolonged operation time. In our study, the mean operation time was 65.2 ± 30.4 min and readmission rates were higher in patients with longer operation time.
Renal anomalies have been observed 3-11% of the cases. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in anatomically deformed kidneys is a difficult procedure due to the abnormal orientation of the renal pelvicalyceal system and the unusual course of renal vascularity [21]. Vicentini et al. [22] reported a %72.4 success rate of PCNL performed in patients with anatomically deformed kidneys. Bas et al. [23] indicated that 71 percent of their patients with horseshoe kidneys had SFR after PCNL. In our study, anatomical abnormalities were observed in a total of 20 patients. SFR of 85% was achieved with PCNL in anomalous kidneys. Readmission rates were statistically higher in these patients.
In general, the incidence of major complications after PCNL is low. In a study by Tefekli et al., [24], the overall incidence of a modified Clavien Grade 3 to 5 complication rate was 10.5%, which was even lower than that of PCNL performed for a simple stone (isolated pelvic or calyceal stone). Fahmy et al. [12] found that no patient required readmission to the emergency department except for two patients, one who presented with moderate hematuria 5 days after discharge from the emergency department and was treated conservatively, and the other patient had persistent urine leakage that resolved spontaneously 1 week after removal of the nephrostomy tube. In our study, complication rate was 19.5%. Grade 5 complications were not observed. Patients with complications had higher readmission and rehospitalisation rates after discharge.
The retrospective design of this study is the main limitation. However, we used standardised data collection and complication recording methods to minimise variations and limitations in the study.
Ethics Committee Approval: Ethics committee approval was received for this study from the ethics committee of University of Health Sciences Izmir Tepecik Training and Research Hospital (Decision date and no: 03.04.2024- 2024/02-05).
Informed Consent: An informed consent was obtained from the patients.
Publication: The results of the study were not published in full or in part in form of abstracts.
Peer-review: Externally and internally peer-reviewed.
Authorship Contributions: Any contribution was not made by any individual not listed as an author. Concept – Y.A., M.C.K.; Design – Y.A., M.C.K.; Supervision – Y.A., M.Z.K.; Resources – Ö.K., E.D.; Materials – Ö.K., E.D.; Data Collection and/or Processing – Ö.K., E.D.; Analysis and/or Interpretation – Y.A., M.C.K.; Literature Search – Ö.K., E.D.; Writing Manuscript – Y.A., M.C.K.; Critical Review – Y.A., M.Z.K.
Conflict of Interest: The author declares that there was no conflict of interest.
Financial Disclosure: The authors have declared that they did not receive any financial support for the realization of this study.
1) Johnston AW, Jiang R, Alkazemi MH, Wolf S, Pomann
GM, Lipkin ME, et al. Nationwide Readmission Rates
Following Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Does Age
Matter? J Endourol. 2019;33(9):704-11.
https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0239
2) Wright A, Rukin N, Smith D, De la Rosette J, Somani
BK. "Mini, ultra, micro"- nomenclature and cost of these
new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy
(PCNL) techniques. Ther Adv Urol. 2016;8(2):142-6.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287215617674
3) Tepeler A, Karatag T, Tok A, Ozyuvali E, Buldu I, Kardas
S, et al. Factors affecting hospital readmission and
rehospitalization following percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
World J Urol. 2016;34(1):69-73.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1641-1
4) Van Wilder A, Cox B, De Ridder D, Tambeur W, Maertens
P, Stijnen P, et al. Unwarranted Between-hospital Variation
in Mortality, Readmission, and Length of Stay of Urological
Admissions: An Important Trigger for Prioritising Quality
Targets. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8(5):1531-40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.11.001
5) Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Biyani CS, Bjerggaard Jensen
J, Rouprêt M, Truss M. Validation of the Clavien-Dindo
Grading System in Urology by the European Association
of Urology Guidelines Ad Hoc Panel. Eur Urol Focus.
2018;4(4):608-13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.02.014
6) Ganpule AP, Vijayakumar M, Malpani A, Desai MR.
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) a critical review.
Int J Surg. 2016;36(Pt D):660-4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.11.028
7) Zhang XJ, Zhu ZJ, Wu JJ. Application of Clavien-Dindo
Classification System for Complications of Minimally
Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. J Healthc Eng.
2021;2021:5361415.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5361415
8) Bhatia VP, Aro T, Smith SM, Samson P, Lynch E, Gaunay
G, et al. Frailty as predictor of complications in patients
undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). World
J Urol. 2021;39(10):3971-7.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03681-x
9) Rambachan A, Matulewicz RS, Pilecki M, Kim JY,
Kundu SD. Predictors of readmission following outpatient
urological surgery. J Urol. 2014;192(1):183-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.053
10) Armitage JN, Withington J, van der Meulen J,
Cromwell DA, Glass J, Finch WG, et al. Percutaneous
nephrolithotomy in England: practice and outcomes
described in the Hospital Episode Statistics database. BJU
Int. 2014;113(5):777-82.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12373
11) Beiko D, Elkoushy MA, Kokorovic A, Roberts G, Robb S,
Andonian S. Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy:
what is the rate of readmission? J Endourol. 2015;29(4):410-4.
https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0584
12) Fahmy A, Rhashad H, Algebaly O, Sameh W. Can
percutaneous nephrolithotomy be performed as an
outpatient procedure? Arab J Urol. 2017;15(1):1-6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2016.11.006
13) Bechis SK, Han DS, Abbott JE, Holst DD, Alagh A,
DiPina T, et al. Outpatient Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy:
The UC San Diego Health Experience. J Endourol.
2018;32(5):394-401.
https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0056
14) Zhao Z, Sun H, Wu X, Cai C, Liu Y, Zeng G. Evaluation
of day-care versus inpatient mini-percutaneous
nephrolithotomy: a propensity score-matching study.
Urolithiasis. 2020;48(3):209-15.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01160-y
15) Schoenfeld D, Zhou T, Stern JM. Outcomes for Patients
Undergoing Ambulatory Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. J
Endourol. 2019;33(3):189-93.
https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0579
16) Kumar S, Singh S, Singh P, Singh SK. Day care PNL
using "Santosh-PGI hemostatic seal" versus standard PNL:
A randomized controlled study. Cent European J Urol.
2016;69(2):190-7.
https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2016.792
17) Keskin SK, Danacioglu YO, Turan T, Atis RG, Canakci
C, Caskurlu T, et al. Reasons for early readmission
after percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde
intrarenal surgery. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne.
2019;14(2):271-7.
https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2018.77705
18) Sugihara T, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Fujimura T,
Nishimatsu H, Kume H, et al. Longer operative time
is associated with higher risk of severe complications
after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: analysis of 1511
cases from a Japanese nationwide database. Int J Urol.
2013;20(12):1193-8.
https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12157
19) Oner S, Okumus MM, Demirbas M, Onen E, Aydos MM,
Ustun MH, et al. Factors Influencing Complications of
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Single-Center Study.
Urol J. 2015;12(5):2317-23.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26571313/
20) Lopes T, Sangam K, Alken P, Barroilhet BS, Saussine C, Shi L,
et al. Clinical Research Office of The Endourological Society
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Study Group. The Clinical
Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous
Nephrolithotomy Global Study: tract dilation comparisons in
5537 patients. J Endourol. 2011;25(5):755-62.
https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0488
21) Lee JW, Park J, Lee SB, Son H, Cho SY, Jeong H.
Minipercutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. retrograde
intrarenal surgery for renal stones larger than 10 mm:
A prospective randomized controlled trial. Urology
2015;86(5):873-7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.08.011
22) Vicentini FC, Mazzucchi E, Gökçe Mİ, Sofer M, Tanidir
Y, Sener TE, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in
horseshoe kidneys: Results of a multicentric study. J
Endourol 2021;35(7):979-84.
https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0128