Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Papillary and non-papillary access techniques yield comparable clinical outcomes in percutaneous nephrolithotomyPapillary Access Shows Similar Results to Standard Kidney Stone Surgery

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that papillary and non-papillary access techniques yield comparable outcomes in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

This meta-analysis evaluated the clinical outcomes of papillary versus non-papillary access techniques in 856 patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for renal calculi. The study synthesized data across several perioperative and clinical metrics to determine if access technique influenced patient outcomes.

The analysis found no statistically significant differences between papillary and non-papillary access across all measured secondary outcomes. Specifically, there were no significant differences in hemoglobin drop (MD 0.09 g/dL; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.37), transfusion rates (OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.59 to 2.74), or postoperative serum creatinine levels (MD 0.02 mg/dL; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07). Additionally, operative duration (MD 2.81 min; 95% CI -2.06 to 7.68) and duration of hospital stay (MD 0.08 days; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.44) were comparable between groups.

Furthermore, stone-free status showed no significant difference (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.89). The authors suggest that both papillary and non-papillary access techniques provide comparable clinical outcomes regarding major perioperative parameters. Clinical decision-making may be individualized based on anatomy, stone characteristics, and surgeon expertise.

How this fits prior evidence

This meta-analysis confirms previous findings that nonpapillary access provides comparable safety and efficacy to papillary access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy, specifically regarding stone-free rates and safety. The results reinforce the conclusion that nonpapillary access is a safe alternative to papillary access for managing renal calculi.

A meta-analysis looked at 856 patients undergoing a procedure called percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) to treat kidney stones. Researchers compared two different surgical approaches: papillary access and non-papillary access. The goal was to see if one method performed better than the other in terms of patient recovery and surgical success.

The study found no significant differences between the two methods. Specifically, both techniques showed similar results for blood loss, the need for blood transfusions, and kidney function levels after surgery. The length of time patients stayed in the hospital and the time it took to complete the surgery were also comparable between the two groups.

Additionally, the rate of successfully removing stones was similar for both methods. Because the results were so similar, the study suggests that both techniques are effective for treating kidney stones. Patients and doctors can consider these findings when deciding on the best surgical approach based on individual needs.

What this means for you:
Both papillary and non-papillary access techniques show similar results for kidney stone surgery outcomes.

Common questions

Are there differences in recovery time between the two surgical methods?

The study found no statistically significant difference in the duration of hospital stays for patients. Both papillary and non-papillary access methods resulted in similar recovery timelines for those undergoing surgery for kidney stones.

Does one method result in more blood loss or transfusions?

The study found no significant difference in hemoglobin drop or transfusion rates between the two methods. Both papillary and non-papillary access techniques showed comparable results regarding blood loss and the need for transfusions.

Is one method more effective at removing kidney stones?

The study showed no significant difference in stone-free status between the two methods. Both papillary and non-papillary access techniques were equally effective at achieving the goal of removing kidney stones.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 856
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedOct 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) access is traditionally obtained via papillary puncture to minimize bleeding, though non-papillary access is frequently utilized in everyday clinical practice due to practical considerations such as anatomical variations and stone location. Because existing comparative studies have yielded inconsistent findings, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize existing evidence evaluating the safety and efficacy of papillary versus non-papillary access during PCNL. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic search of databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov, alongside grey literature, was conducted from inception until December 2025. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing papillary and non-papillary access for renal calculi in patients undergoing PCNL were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) alongside their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of six studies comprising 856 patients met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences between the papillary and non-papillary access groups regarding hemoglobin drop (MD 0.09 g/dL, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.37), transfusion rates (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.74), changes in postoperative serum creatinine levels (MD 0.02 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07), duration of hospital stay (MD 0.08 days, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.44), stone-free status (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.89), or operative duration (MD 2.81 min, 95% CI -2.06 to 7.68). Heterogeneity across most outcomes was minimal. Meta-regression identified stone size as the only significant moderator, which negatively influenced operative duration. CONCLUSION: Papillary and non-papillary access techniques during PCNL appear to provide comparable clinical outcomes with no significant differences in major perioperative parameters. The clinical decision-making regarding the selection of access technique should be individualized, considering patient anatomy, stone characteristics, and surgical expertise rather than strict adherence to a single standardized puncture strategy.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.