Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Treating Lower Calyceal Renal Stone of 1-2 centimeter in Favorable Lower Pole Calyceal Anatomy: Comparison with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3329/bmrcb.v51i1.80241Keywords:
Lower calyx stone, 1-2 cm renal stone, Favorable lower pole anatomy, Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsyAbstract
Background: Renal stones commonly occur in the lower pole calyx, making treatment challenging due to anatomical factors. The main treatment options for lower calyceal stones are extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). ESWL is preferred for stone <1cm, while PCNL is preferred for stone >2cm. However, for 1-2 cm stone with favorable lower pole calyceal anatomy, both treatments are practiced. ESWL is non-invasive with fewer complications but has lower stone clearance requiring multiple sessions.
Objective: To evaluate efficacy and safety of PCNL compared to ESWL in treating lower calyceal renal stone of 1-2 cm in favorable lower pole calyceal anatomy.
Methods: This was a single center quasi-experimental study on 44 patients, divided into two groups: group A (experimental group) and group B (control group), from January 2023 to August 2024 in the Department of Urology, Bangladesh Medical University (BMU), Shahbag, Dhaka. The unilateral, single, radiopaque, 1-2 cm sized lower calyceal renal stone in favorable lower pole calyx anatomy was included in the study. The computed tomography urogram (CTU) was carried out to assess the favorable infundibular characteristics, stone size, Hounsfield unit and skin to stone distance. Experimental group underwent PCNL and control group, ESWL. Operation duration, post operative complications determined by modified Clavien Dindo, duration of hospital stay and stone clearance were evaluated between the groups. Continuous variables were analyzed by t-test and categorical variables by chi-square test and fisher’s exact test. P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Experimental group (65±13.54 minutes) had shorter operation time compared to control group (70.23±23.73 minutes); but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.374). Grade-1 complication was more in control group than experimental group. While grade-2 complication was more in experimental group than control group but overall complication rate was identical (p=0.763) between two groups. Duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter (p<0.01) in control group (11.09±3.89 hours) than experimental group (77.45±22.13 hours). Stone clearance was significantly (p=0.012) higher in experimental group (81.1%) than control group (45%).
Conclusion: PCNL offers better stone clearance but require longer hospital stay than ESWL with identical operation time and complication rates between them.
Bangladesh Medical Res Counc Bull 2025;51(1):18-24
Downloads
0
0
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Md. Shafiquzzaman , Tohid Mohammad Saiful Hossain , Md. Omar Faruk , A.F.M. Muntahi Reza , Gazi Mohammad Shaheenul Islam , Akter Kamal Perveg , Md. Rafiqul Islam

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
Articles in the Bangladesh Medical Research Council Bulletin are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).