PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose:
To compare the clinical parameters and complications between standard and tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomies (PCNL). The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety and morbidity of a tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Materials and Methods:
A total of 102 patients, who underwent a PCNL at our institution by one surgeon, were enrolled in this study. Of the 102 patients, 30 underwent a standard PCNL between January 2001 and July 2002, and 72 underwent a tubeless PCNL between July 2002 and March 2005. All the PCNL were performed using a balloon tract dilator and 30Fr. working sheath. In the standard PCNL group, a 12Fr. nephrostomy tube was inserted. In the tubeless PCNL group, no nephrostomy tube was inserted, with the skin sutured onto the site of the nephrostomy. The stone volume, operating time, amount of blood loss, complications and hospital stay were compared between the two groups.
Results:
There were no significant differences in stone volumes, decrease in postoperative 1 day hemoglobin, transfusion rates and complication rates between the two groups. However, the postoperative hemoglobin (p=0.05) and hospital stay (p=0.001) were significantly less in the tubeless compared to the standard PCNL group.
REFERENCES
1.Femstrom I., Johannson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy: a new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976. 10:257–9.
2.Wickham JE., Miller RA., Kellett MJ., Payne SR. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: one stage or two? Br J Urol. 1984. 56:582–5.
3.Lingeman JE., Lifshitz DA., Evan AP. Surgical management of urinary lithiasis. Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, Wein AJ, editors. editors.Campbell' surology. 8th ed.Philadelphia: Saunders;2002. p. 3361–451.
4.Feng MI., Tamaddon K., Mikhail A., Kaptein JS., Bellman GC. Prospective randomized study of various techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology. 2001. 58:345–50.
5.Limb J., Bellman GC. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery: review of first 112 patients Urology. 2002. 59:527–31.
6.Desai MR., Kukreja RA., Desai MM., Mhaskar SS., Wani KA., Patel SH, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of type of nephrostomy drainage following percutaneous nephrolithotomy: large bore versus small bore versus tubeless. J Urol. 2004. 172:565–7.
7.Giusti G., Piccinelli A., Tavema G., Benetti A., Pasini L., Corinti M, et al. Miniperc? No, thank you! Eur Urol. 2006. 11:[Ahead of print].
8.Bellman GC., Davido伴R ., Candela J., Gerspach J., Kurtz S., Stout L. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. AUA update series. 1997. 157:1578–82.
9.Srivastava A., Singh KJ., Suri A., Dubey D., Kumar A., Kapoor R, et al. Vascular complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Are there any predictive factors? Urology. 2005. 66:38–40.
10.Aron M., Yadav R., Goel R., Kolia SB., Gautam G., Hemal AK. Multi-tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large complete staghorn calculi. Urol Int. 2005. 75:327–32.
11.Park BH., Han YM., Kim YG. Comparison of the two-stage procedure with the one-stage procedure for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Korean J Urol. 2006. 47:512–6.
Table 1.
Parameters of the patients with standard and tubeless PCNL
Table 2.
Comparison of the parameters between standard and tubeless PCNL
XML Download