# Comparison of Trifecta Outcomes in Standard Versus Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Renal Stone Management

**Authors:** Immad Ahmed, Liaqat Ali, Abdul Haseeb, Khizer Zaman, Nauman Ul Mulk, Fayyaz Ullah, Muhammad Raheel, Muhammad Zohaib, Jamal A Shah

PMC · DOI: 10.7759/cureus.80328 · Cureus · 2025-03-10

## TL;DR

This study compares standard and mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones, finding that standard PCNL has better stone clearance but mini PCNL is safer.

## Contribution

The study provides a direct comparison of trifecta outcomes between standard and mini PCNL for renal stone treatment.

## Key findings

- Standard PCNL had a higher complete stone-free rate (93.3%) compared to mini PCNL (76.7%).
- Mini PCNL had fewer complications (6.66%) compared to standard PCNL (17.77%).
- The overall trifecta success rate was higher in standard PCNL (71.12%) than in mini PCNL (50.03%).

## Abstract

Introduction: Urolithiasis is a common urological condition, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a widely used treatment option for renal stones. The trifecta analysis, which includes the complete stone-free rate (SFR), absence of complications (Clavien-Dindo classification), and no need for auxiliary procedures, provides a standardized method for comparing outcomes. This study evaluates the trifecta outcomes of standard PCNL versus mini PCNL

Methodology: This prospective cohort study was conducted at the Department of Urology, Institute of Kidney Diseases, Peshawar, from January 2022 to March 2024. A total of 180 consecutive patients who underwent PCNL were enrolled in the study. Using a lottery method, patients were randomly assigned to two equal groups (standard PCNL and mini PCNL). Both groups consisted of 90 patients each. Patients who required a change in the planned surgical procedure were replaced with new participants from the sample frame. A structured proforma was used to record preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data for the trifecta analysis. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0 (Released 2015; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States). Logistic regression was performed to assess predictive factors for the trifecta, and the odds ratio (OR), confidence interval (CI), and p-value were calculated.

Results: The mean age in the standard PCNL group was 43.21 ± 3.51 years vs 44.03 ± 3.17 years in the mini PCNL group (p = 0.10). The mean stone size in the standard PCNL group was 30.62 ± 5.88 mm vs 30.28 ± 6.03 mm in the mini PCNL group (p = 0.70). The mean stone density in the standard PCNL group was 1366.25 ± 74.28 HU vs 1342.66 ± 107.34 HU in the mini PCNL group (p = 0.08). Stones were completely cleared in 84 (93.3%) patients in the standard PCNL group and 69 (76.7%) in the mini PCNL group (p = 0.02). Auxiliary procedures, including extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and repeat double J (DJ) stenting, were required in four patients (4.4%) in the standard PCNL group compared to 20 patients (20%) in the mini PCNL group. Regarding complications, the standard PCNL group recorded complications in 16 patients (17.77%), including Grade 1 (six patients), Grade 2 (five patients), and Grade 3 (five patients), according to the Clavein-Dindo classification. In the mini PCNL group, six patients (6.66%) experienced postoperative complications, including Grade 1 (five patients) and Grade 2 (one patient) (p = 0.02). The overall trifecta success rate was 71.12% in the standard PCNL group vs 50.03% in the mini PCNL group.

Conclusion: The trifecta analysis indicates that standard PCNL has a higher SFR, while mini PCNL is safer but requires more auxiliary procedures.

## Linked entities

- **Diseases:** urolithiasis (MONDO:0024647)

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** urological condition (MESH:D014570), Stone (MESH:D007669), Urolithiasis (MESH:D052878), Kidney Diseases (MESH:D007674)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11980021/full.md

## References

18 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11980021/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11980021