Retrospective, multicenter evaluation of outcome in percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy using different energy sources for lithotripsy

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-24 · read from full text

This multicenter prospective study evaluated 125 patients undergoing mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PNL) across two sites to compare holmium YAG laser versus ballistic or ultrasound lithotripsy energy sources (including EMS Trilogy), assessing stone-free rate and intrarenal operative time adjusted for stone volume; complications were graded with the Clavien-Dindo system. Laser use was more common in Regensburg, while EMS Trilogy predominated in Trier, and laser lithotripsy was associated with shorter median intrarenal operative time than EMS Trilogy (28.5 vs 35 minutes), with the difference persisting after adjustment for stone volume. Stone-free rate and reintervention rate did not differ significantly between energy methods, and postoperative complication rates showed no statistically significant differences by method, though higher BMI correlated with more complications. As a preprint not yet peer reviewed, and conducted with site-specific energy source preferences, results may be influenced by nonrandom treatment allocation. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Abstract Purpose: Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PNL) is an effective treatment for large renal stones, offering high stone clearance rates with low complication risks. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of holmium YAG laser, ballistic, and ultrasound lithotripsy during mini-PNL. Methods: This multicenter prospective study analyzed 125 patients who underwent mini-PNL using either laser, ballistic, or ultrasound lithotripsy. Efficacy was assessed based on the stone-free rate (evaluated endoscopically and via fluoroscopy) and intrarenal surgery time adjusted for stone volume. Stone volume was estimated using automated CT-based computation when available or calculated using the ellipsoid volume formula. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Results: A total of 125 patients (59 in Regensburg, 66 in Trier) were included. The primary energy sources were laser (54.4%) and EMS Trilogy (44%). In Regensburg, lithotripsy was performed using a laser in 96.6% of cases, whereas in Trier EMS Trilogy was used in 81.8% and laser in 16.7% of cases. The median intrarenal operative time was shorter with laser compared to EMS Trilogy (28.5 min vs. 35 min; p = 0.033). After adjustment for stone volume, the difference remained significant (mean difference = −18.77 min; p = 0.0001). There were no significant differences regarding stone-free rate (SFR) (laser 85.3% vs. EMS 72.8%; p = 0.222) or reintervention rate (laser 19.1% vs. EMS 23.6%; p = 0.8706). Postoperative complications occurred independently of the method used (Grade 1–2: laser 13.2% vs. EMS 29%; Grade 3–4: laser 5.9% vs. EMS 1.8%; p = 0.138). In the univariate analysis, higher BMI was associated with an increased rate of complications (p = 0.04). Conclusion: Compared with laser lithotripsy, the use of EMS Trilogy for stone fragmentation was associated with a significantly longer operative time, while complication rates and stone-free rates did not differ significantly.
Full text 14,342 characters · extracted from preprint-html · click to expand
Retrospective, multicenter evaluation of outcome in percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy using different energy sources for lithotripsy | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Retrospective, multicenter evaluation of outcome in percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy using different energy sources for lithotripsy Maximillian Reinahrd Müller, Marco Julius Schnabel, Sarina Herrig, and 4 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9114141/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Purpose: Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PNL) is an effective treatment for large renal stones, offering high stone clearance rates with low complication risks. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of holmium YAG laser, ballistic, and ultrasound lithotripsy during mini-PNL. Methods: This multicenter prospective study analyzed 125 patients who underwent mini-PNL using either laser, ballistic, or ultrasound lithotripsy. Efficacy was assessed based on the stone-free rate (evaluated endoscopically and via fluoroscopy) and intrarenal surgery time adjusted for stone volume. Stone volume was estimated using automated CT-based computation when available or calculated using the ellipsoid volume formula. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Results: A total of 125 patients (59 in Regensburg, 66 in Trier) were included. The primary energy sources were laser (54.4%) and EMS Trilogy (44%). In Regensburg, lithotripsy was performed using a laser in 96.6% of cases, whereas in Trier EMS Trilogy was used in 81.8% and laser in 16.7% of cases. The median intrarenal operative time was shorter with laser compared to EMS Trilogy (28.5 min vs. 35 min; p = 0.033). After adjustment for stone volume, the difference remained significant (mean difference = −18.77 min; p = 0.0001). There were no significant differences regarding stone-free rate (SFR) (laser 85.3% vs. EMS 72.8%; p = 0.222) or reintervention rate (laser 19.1% vs. EMS 23.6%; p = 0.8706). Postoperative complications occurred independently of the method used (Grade 1–2: laser 13.2% vs. EMS 29%; Grade 3–4: laser 5.9% vs. EMS 1.8%; p = 0.138). In the univariate analysis, higher BMI was associated with an increased rate of complications (p = 0.04). Conclusion: Compared with laser lithotripsy, the use of EMS Trilogy for stone fragmentation was associated with a significantly longer operative time, while complication rates and stone-free rates did not differ significantly. Kidney stones Mini-PCNL Minimally invasive-percutaneous nephrolithotomy Nephrolithiasis PCNL Percutaneous nephrolithotomy Stone-free rate Re do PCNL Urolithiasis [MeSH] Full Text Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 17 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 14 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 14 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 13 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9114141","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":607401372,"identity":"e55a78f9-810c-45af-bd99-d2012b5ecaea","order_by":0,"name":"Maximillian Reinahrd Müller","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lehrstuhl der Universität Regensburg","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Maximillian","middleName":"Reinahrd","lastName":"Müller","suffix":""},{"id":607401377,"identity":"258ce5f6-110a-4b08-a441-0b464f69f9b2","order_by":1,"name":"Marco Julius Schnabel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lehrstuhl der Universität Regensburg","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marco","middleName":"Julius","lastName":"Schnabel","suffix":""},{"id":607401378,"identity":"d5ee0687-e905-45e2-90d7-c8b459fbe841","order_by":2,"name":"Sarina Herrig","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Krankenhaus der Barmherzige Brüdern Trier, Medizincampus Trier der Universitätsmedizin Mainz","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sarina","middleName":"","lastName":"Herrig","suffix":""},{"id":607401380,"identity":"11cacb69-2973-47dc-a4eb-c867c83eb8a6","order_by":3,"name":"Maximilian Burger","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lehrstuhl der Universität Regensburg","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Maximilian","middleName":"","lastName":"Burger","suffix":""},{"id":607401381,"identity":"d45540b4-d977-4b7d-a427-a762daa2257c","order_by":4,"name":"Andreas Neisius","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Krankenhaus der Barmherzige Brüdern Trier, Medizincampus Trier der Universitätsmedizin Mainz","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Andreas","middleName":"","lastName":"Neisius","suffix":""},{"id":607401384,"identity":"e7a2d680-7c01-4e2a-bd1d-1ff66519f265","order_by":5,"name":"Wissam Yared","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Krankenhaus der Barmherzige Brüdern Trier, Medizincampus Trier der Universitätsmedizin Mainz","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wissam","middleName":"","lastName":"Yared","suffix":""},{"id":607401386,"identity":"4f0615ff-cd80-4b75-b93e-b6d5115945f7","order_by":6,"name":"Francois Leboutte","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Krankenhaus der Barmherzige Brüdern Trier, Medizincampus Trier der Universitätsmedizin Mainz","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Francois","middleName":"","lastName":"Leboutte","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-13 11:23:31","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9114141/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9114141/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105564356,"identity":"3650b067-5348-46a2-a1b2-763394b85987","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-27 12:49:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1105346,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"APEROLSpinoffManuscriptUrolithiasis.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9114141/v1_covered_89bcab48-29e9-4613-ad8e-28e7aceb5291.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Retrospective, multicenter evaluation of outcome in percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy using different energy sources for lithotripsy","fulltext":[],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":false,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":true,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":true,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"urolithiasis","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ures","sideBox":"Learn more about [Urolithiasis](http://link.springer.com/journal/240)","snPcode":"240","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/240/3","title":"Urolithiasis","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Kidney stones, Mini-PCNL, Minimally invasive-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Nephrolithiasis, PCNL, Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Stone-free rate, Re do PCNL, Urolithiasis [MeSH]","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9114141/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9114141/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePurpose: Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PNL) is an effective treatment for large renal stones, offering high stone clearance rates with low complication risks. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of holmium YAG laser, ballistic, and ultrasound lithotripsy during mini-PNL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMethods: This multicenter prospective study analyzed 125 patients who underwent mini-PNL using either laser, ballistic, or ultrasound lithotripsy. Efficacy was assessed based on the stone-free rate (evaluated endoscopically and via fluoroscopy) and intrarenal surgery time adjusted for stone volume. Stone volume was estimated using automated CT-based computation when available or calculated using the ellipsoid volume formula. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResults: A total of 125 patients (59 in Regensburg, 66 in Trier) were included. The primary energy sources were laser (54.4%) and EMS Trilogy (44%). In Regensburg, lithotripsy was performed using a laser in 96.6% of cases, whereas in Trier EMS Trilogy was used in 81.8% and laser in 16.7% of cases. The median intrarenal operative time was shorter with laser compared to EMS Trilogy (28.5 min vs. 35 min; p = 0.033). After adjustment for stone volume, the difference remained significant (mean difference = −18.77 min; p = 0.0001). There were no significant differences regarding stone-free rate (SFR) (laser 85.3% vs. EMS 72.8%; p = 0.222) or reintervention rate (laser 19.1% vs. EMS 23.6%; p = 0.8706). Postoperative complications occurred independently of the method used (Grade 1–2: laser 13.2% vs. EMS 29%; Grade 3–4: laser 5.9% vs. EMS 1.8%; p = 0.138). In the univariate analysis, higher BMI was associated with an increased rate of complications (p = 0.04).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConclusion: Compared with laser lithotripsy, the use of EMS Trilogy for stone fragmentation was associated with a significantly longer operative time, while complication rates and stone-free rates did not differ significantly.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Retrospective, multicenter evaluation of outcome in percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy using different energy sources for lithotripsy","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-23 23:43:11","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9114141/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-03-17T07:23:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-14T06:36:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-14T06:35:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Urolithiasis","date":"2026-03-13T11:16:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"urolithiasis","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ures","sideBox":"Learn more about [Urolithiasis](http://link.springer.com/journal/240)","snPcode":"240","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/240/3","title":"Urolithiasis","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"fa5f272c-d8b3-42c7-bc6a-961b985c994d","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 23rd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-23T23:43:11+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-23 23:43:11","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9114141","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9114141","identity":"rs-9114141","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: preprint-html

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-29T02:00:03.542394+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0