OBJECTIVE: To present our experience with 454 patients who had tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (TPCNL) over last 3 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 2004 to August 2007, all patients aged >14 years and undergoing PCNL were considered for TPCNL. Exclusion criteria were the presence of pyonephrosis, matrix calculi, significant bleeding or residual stone burden and need for three of more percutaneous accesses. These patients had a nephrostomy tube placed after PCNL (control group). The remaining patients undergoing TPCNL (study group) had antegrade ureteric stenting. Demographic and perioperative data were compared retrospectively. RESULTS: Of 840 patients who had PCNL during the study period, 454 had TPCNL. The two groups had comparable demographic data except for a smaller stone burden (322.8 vs 832.2 mm(2)) and fewer staghorn calculi (94 vs 154) in patients undergoing TPCNL (P < 0.001). The mean number of tracts per renal unit and operative duration were statistically higher in patients undergoing standard PCNL (1.5 vs 1.1, and 68.8 vs 52.2 min, respectively). The decrease in haemoglobin, complication and stone-free rates were comparable. TPCNL was associated with less postoperative pain, analgesia requirement and earlier discharge (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TPCNL can be used with a favourable outcome and no increase in complications in selected patients, with the potential advantages of decreased postoperative pain, analgesia requirement and hospital stay. Its application can be extended to patients with a solitary kidney, previous ipsilateral open surgery, raised serum creatinine level, in the presence of three renal accesses or supracostal access, and in patients undergoing bilateral synchronous PCNL or contralateral endourological stone treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To present our experience with 454 patients who had tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (TPCNL) over last 3 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 2004 to August 2007, all patients aged >14 years and undergoing PCNL were considered for TPCNL. Exclusion criteria were the presence of pyonephrosis, matrix calculi, significant bleeding or residual stone burden and need for three of more percutaneous accesses. These patients had a nephrostomy tube placed after PCNL (control group). The remaining patients undergoing TPCNL (study group) had antegrade ureteric stenting. Demographic and perioperative data were compared retrospectively. RESULTS: Of 840 patients who had PCNL during the study period, 454 had TPCNL. The two groups had comparable demographic data except for a smaller stone burden (322.8 vs 832.2 mm(2)) and fewer staghorn calculi (94 vs 154) in patients undergoing TPCNL (P < 0.001). The mean number of tracts per renal unit and operative duration were statistically higher in patients undergoing standard PCNL (1.5 vs 1.1, and 68.8 vs 52.2 min, respectively). The decrease in haemoglobin, complication and stone-free rates were comparable. TPCNL was associated with less postoperative pain, analgesia requirement and earlier discharge (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TPCNL can be used with a favourable outcome and no increase in complications in selected patients, with the potential advantages of decreased postoperative pain, analgesia requirement and hospital stay. Its application can be extended to patients with a solitary kidney, previous ipsilateral open surgery, raised serum creatinine level, in the presence of three renal accesses or supracostal access, and in patients undergoing bilateral synchronous PCNL or contralateral endourological stone treatment.
Authors: Sang Cheol Lee; Chang Hee Kim; Kwang Taek Kim; Tae Beom Kim; Khae Hawn Kim; Han Jung; Sang Jin Yoon; Jin Kyu Oh Journal: Korean J Urol Date: 2013-10-15
Authors: Marco Garofalo; Cristian Vincenzo Pultrone; Riccardo Schiavina; Eugenio Brunocilla; Francesco Sanguedolce; Marco Borghesi; Christian Rocca; Chiara Del Prete; Antonio Maria Morselli-Labate; Alexandro Paccapelo; Giuseppe Martorana Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: Orhan Karakoç; Ahmet Karakeçi; Tunç Ozan; Fatih Fırdolaş; Cihat Tektaş; Şehmus Erdem Özkarataş; İrfan Orhan Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2015-06