Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) are viable options for the treatment of renal calculi 1-2 cm. Both have their pros and cons, but also vary in costs. We aimed to evaluate them in an economically challenged setting. METHODS: Two-hundred-seventy-one patients who underwent mPCNL (120) or RIRS (151) for renal calculi 1-2 cm were recruited in the study. Cases were comparatively statistically analyzed for differences in patient and stone parameters, duration of operation and hospital stay, and clinical outcomes such as stone free rate and complications. Local costs were calculated compared. RESULTS: Patient and stone parameters did not differ for both procedures. Stone free rate was slightly higher for mPCNL, and significantly higher in the lower pole. Hospitalization was shorter for RIRS, but operation times did not differ significantly. Neither did the complication rates. There was a significantly higher Hb drop for mPCNL, but that did not translate in a significantly higher transfusion rate. CONCLUSION: Given the fact that all parameters were very similar or not statistically significant, choosing and the option comes down to other factors, such as availability of methodology and infrastructure, availability of surgical competence, surgeon's preference, and patient's preference. Both mPCNL and RIRS, are viable, safe, and efficient options for the treatment of renal stones 1-2 cm in size. mPCNL is the more cost-effective option and therefore should be considered if minimally invasive treatment is endeavored in economically challenged countries.