Skip to content

MIP Versus PCNL for Kidney Stone Disease

Kidney Stone

The decision to use standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MIP) has been a subject of much debate in the urological community. The investigators propose a randomized controlled trial to compare the operative outcomes and complications of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) versus standard PCNL for renal stones. The results of this study will help guide the decision making regarding these two procedures in the US population and provide further insight into the utility and safety of these procedures. A cost analysis will be performed, and it is hypothesized that the reusable components of the Storz MIP set will result in lower costs of the mini-PCNL procedure compared to standard PCNL.

null

Participation Requirements

  • Sex:

    ALL

  • Eligible Ages:

    18 and up

Participation Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

* Patients with planned PCNL and a preoperative CT scan
* Urologist obtained access and prone positioning during surgery
* Tract dilation performed either using balloon dilator or a single step mini-PCNL dilation
* Age: ≥18 years' old
* Stone size: 10-25mm
* Gender: Male and female patients
* Patients of all ethnic backgrounds
* Capable of giving informed consent
* Capable and willing to fulfill the requirements of the study
* Pre-existing indwelling nephrostomy tube or ureteral stent permitted

Exclusion Criteria:

* Anticoagulated or history of coagulopathy (with the exception of daily 81 mg aspirin)
* Conversion to open procedure
* Multiple access tracts
* Inability to give informed consent or unable to meet requirements of the study for any reason

Study Location

University Of British Columbia
University Of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada

Contact Study Team

Primary Contact

Ben Chew, MD

[email protected]
(604) 875-5003
Study Sponsored By
University of California, San Diego
Participants Required
More Information
Study ID: NCT04767919