Background: The purpose is to compare the efficacy and safety of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (standard-PCNL) in patients with renal stones >2cm. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies before March 8, 2021. Stone-free rate (SFR), operation time, fever rate, hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion rate, and hospitalization time were used as outcomes to compare mini-PCNL and standard-PCNL. The meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager version 5.4. Results: Seven randomized controlled trials were included in our meta-analysis, involving 1407 mini-PCNL cases and 1436 standard-PCNL cases. Our results reveal that, for renal stones >2cm, mini-PCNL has a similar SFR (risk ratio (RR)=1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98 to 1.04, p=0.57) and fever rate (RR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.97-1.51, p=0.08). Standard-PCNL was associated with a significantly shorter operating time (weighted mean difference (WMD)=8.23, 95% CI: 3.44 to 13.01, p <0.01) and a longer hospitalization time (WMD=-20.05, 95% CI: -29.28 to -10.81, p <0.01) than mini-PCNL. Subgroup analysis showed hemoglobin drop and blood transfusion for 30F standard-PCNL were more common than mini-PCNL (WMD=-0.95, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.50, p <0.01; RR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.58, p <0.01). Conclusion:In the treatment of >2cm renal stones, mini-PCNL should be considered an effective and reliable alternative to standard-PCNL (30F). It achieves a comparable SFR to standard-PCNL, but with less blood loss, lower transfusion rate, and shorter hospitalization. However, the mini-PCNL does not show a significant advantage over the 24F standard-PCNL. On the contrary, this procedure takes a longer operation time.Trial registration: This meta-analysis was reported consistent with the PRISMA statement and was registered on PROSPERO, with registration number 2021CRD42021234893.

Background The incidence of aberrant catheterization into a ureter is extremely low, and there is a 20% chance that the balloon cannot be deflated. Regrettably, the mechanism underlying this complication remains unknown. There has been no reported case of a Foley catheter successfully removed from the ureter via percutaneous puncture. Case presentation A 86-year-old man complained of increasing abdominal pain after an 18F Foley catheter was inserted into his urethra. His attending physician attempted but failed to deflate the balloon. A bedside ultrasound and CT scan revealed that the catheter tip was in the right lower ureter. Several measures, including cutting the catheter and inserting a rigid guidewire, were then attempted but failed to deflate the balloon. Finally, the inflated balloon was punctured with a PTC needle under ultrasound-guidance, and the misplaced Foley catheter was removed. Two days after the pelvic drainage tube was removed, the patient was discharged. Conclusion This is the first reported case of a Foley catheter being removed from the ureter via percutaneous puncture. The mechanism by which the balloon is unable to deflate may be related to the passive twist of the catheter. In such a case, an overall assessment of the patient's condition should be performed, and non-invasive to invasive interventions should be phased in.