Literature DB >> 15865526

Using and choosing a nephrostomy tube after percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large or complex stone disease: a treatment strategy.

Samuel C Kim1, William W Tinmouth, Ramsay L Kuo, Ryan F Paterson, James E Lingeman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a well-accepted technique for removal of large or complex renal calculi. However, little attention has been paid to strategies for nephrostomy tube (NT) selection. We reviewed the reasons for selecting three types of NT after PCNL for large or complex stone disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of 106 consecutive renal units undergoing PCNL for stone burdens >2 cm by a single surgeon (JEL) were reviewed. Noncontrast CT (NCCT) was carried out on postoperative day 1, and secondary procedures were performed if fragments remained. The NTs studied were 8.5F and 10F Cope loops (CP), 20F reentry Malecot catheters (REM), and 20F circle loops (CL). Patient demographics, access site and number, complications, and stone type were examined. "Stone free" was defined as a negative NCCT or negative second-look PCNL.
RESULTS: A total of 134 accesses were created in 106 renal units: 35 upper, 7 mid, and 92 lower; however, only 111 NTs were placed: 85 CP (76.6%), 19 REM (17.1%), and 7 CL (6.3%). Sixteen accesses were performed tubeless; all but two were in the upper pole. All 16 of these renal units had a concomitant NT placed in the lower pole. Multiple sites were accessed in 21 patients; 7 of these patients had CL placed. Five of ten patients with spinal-cord injury had REM/CL placed. Nineteen REM were placed: 10 for drainage of infection, and 9 for difficult anatomy. All renal units were rendered stone free: 31.1% with a single procedure and 95.6% with one or two procedures. There were no difficulties with drainage or access for secondary PCNL regardless of the NT employed. Complications included two hydrothoraces, one arteriovenous fistula, and one ureteral perforation. Three of four renal units in patients requiring transfusions underwent bilateral PCNL, and at least one renal unit required multiple accesses. Of kidneys with infection stones, 57.1% required REM or CL; only 12.0% of nonstruvite stones necessitated REM or CL.
CONCLUSIONS: All patients having PCNL done for complex stone disease should have an NT placed; however, small (8.5F-10F) CP suffice in most cases and can provide greater patient comfort. To minimize pleural morbidity, tubeless upper-pole access should be considered if the kidney is judged to be stone free at the conclusion of PCNL. Circle loops are useful when multiple accesses are necessary, whereas REM are appropriate if access is difficult, gross residual stone remains, or pain is not an issue (i.e., spinal-cord injury).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15865526     DOI: 10.1089/end.2005.19.348

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  10 in total

1.  The Circle Nephrostomy Tube: An Attractive Nephrostomy Drainage System Following Complex Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Marawan M El Tayeb; Michael S Borofsky; James E Lingeman
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Circle nephrostomy tube revisited.

Authors:  Yasser A Noureldin; Christian Diab; David Valenti; Sero Andonian
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: yes but when? A multicentre retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Murat M Rifaioglu; Kadir Onem; Ibrahim Buldu; Tuna Karatag; Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 4.  Advances in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and patient selection: an update.

Authors:  Mitra R de Cógáin; Amy E Krambeck
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  [Use of a gelatine-thrombin matrix for closure of the access tract without a nephrostomy tube in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy].

Authors:  D Schilling; B Winter; A S Merseburger; A G Anastasiadis; U Walcher; A Stenzl; U Nagele
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients: a prospective randomized comparison.

Authors:  Ahmet Tefekli; Fatih Altunrende; Kadir Tepeler; Aytul Tas; Sabahattin Aydin; Ahmet Y Muslumanoglu
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2006-12-14       Impact factor: 2.266

Review 7.  Advances in percutaneous stone surgery.

Authors:  Christopher Hartman; Nikhil Gupta; David Leavitt; David Hoenig; Zeph Okeke; Arthur Smith
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2015-04-16

Review 8.  Intraoperative and postoperative feasibility and safety of total tubeless, tubeless, small-bore tube, and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Joo Yong Lee; Seong Uk Jeh; Man Deuk Kim; Dong Hyuk Kang; Jong Kyou Kwon; Won Sik Ham; Young Deuk Choi; Kang Su Cho
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 2.264

9.  Case selection and implementation of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Yun-Hua Mao; Chun-Ping Huang; Teng-Cheng Li; Wen-Biao Li; Fei Yang; Bo-Long Liu; Yun Luo; Xue-Lian Chen; Hai-Lun Zhan
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-08

10.  Comparison of outcomes of tubed versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children: A single center study.

Authors:  Nadeem Iqbal; Salman Assad; Ijaz Hussain; Yumna Hassan; Hafsa Khan; Muhammad Armaghan Farooq; Saeed Akhter
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2018-01-08
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.