Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Eur Urol. 2007 Mar;51(3):810-4; discussion 815. Epub 2006 Aug 11.

Miniperc? No, thank you!

Author information

  • 1Department of Urology, Istituto Clinico Humanitas, IRCCS, via Manzoni 56, 20089 Rozzano, Milan, Italy.



The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the results of our miniperc series through comparison with results from standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) and tubeless PNL series in the treatment of stones <2 cm in diameter.


A total of 134 percutaneous treatments were performed for renal stones <2 cm in diameter. Among the treatments, 40 were minipercs, 67 were standard PNLs, and 27 were tubeless PNLs.


Miniperc operative time was longer than that of standard PNL (155.5 vs 106.6 min, respectively) and tubeless PNL (95.9 min). Conversely, there was an advantage for miniperc over standard PNL in terms of a significantly reduced hematocrit drop (4.49% vs 6.31%). No miniperc patients required blood transfusions, whereas two did in the standard PNL group and one in the tubeless PNL group. There was no statistical difference in terms of the amount of analgesics between the standard PNL and miniperc groups, although this difference was statistically significant between the miniperc and tubeless PNL groups (73.8 vs 41.1mg, respectively). Hospitalization for the miniperc group was shorter than that required by the standard PNL group (3.05 vs 5.07 days), but tubeless PNL offered the best result (2.18 days). The stone-free rate was 100% in the tubeless PNL group, 94% in the standard PNL group, and 77.5% in the miniperc group.


Our retrospective study failed to demonstrate significant advantages of the miniperc technique. As such, we no longer perform miniperc but instead use tubeless PNL when possible.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk