Literature DB >> 20151965

Questioning the wisdom of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective randomized controlled study of early tube removal vs tubeless PCNL.

Shashikant Mishra1, Ravindra B Sabnis, Abraham Kurien, Arvind Ganpule, Veeramani Muthu, Mahesh Desai.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To establish the efficacy of early removal of a nephrostomy tube after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), to challenge the wisdom of tubeless PCNL, as we hypothesized that it would result in a shorter hospital stay, comparable benefit and safety, while maintaining the option of check nephroscopy ensuring far superior stone clearance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 22 patients were prospectively randomized equally into two groups, group 1 (early nephrostomy removal) or group 2 (tubeless) during a 1-month study period. Inclusion criteria for the study were: a simple stone of <3 cm, no significant bleeding, no perforation, single-tract access and 'on-table' complete stone clearance. In group 1, a 20 F nephrostomy, 6 F retrograde ureteric catheter and a Foley catheter were used, while in group 2 only a 6 F retrograde ureteric catheter and Foley catheter were placed at the end of the procedure. Computed tomography (CT) with no contrast medium was done on the first morning after surgery before removing all catheters/tubes, and patients discharged subsequently. The variables assessed were stone clearance, hospital stay, analgesic requirement, postoperative complications and auxiliary procedures.
RESULTS: The mean (SD) stone bulk was similar between the groups, at 2737 (946.9) and 2934.2 (2090.7) µL, respectively. Despite an on-table complete clearance, clearance assessed by CT was nine of 11 vs eight of 11 in groups 1 and 2, respectively. CT showed a 6 mm stone in one patient in group 1, while the remaining patients had stones of <4 mm. The mean (SD) analgesic requirement, haemoglobin decrease, urine leak and hospital stay in the two groups were 72.7 (51.8) vs 68.2 (46.2) mg of tramadol (P= 0.25), 1.6 (0.7) vs 1.6 (0.9) g/dL (P= 0.39), 13.9 (6.3) vs 7.1 (14.2) h (P= 0.018) and 72.8 (2.1) vs 70.2 (18.5) h (P= 0.09), respectively. Complications noted were early haematuria in none vs three (P= 0.21), urinoma none vs one, and fever in two vs one, respectively; one patient in group 1 required a check nephroscopy for a residual fragment. Overall clearance including re-treatment was 10/11 vs eight of 11 (P= 0.009), respectively.
CONCLUSION: Early tube removal after PCNL results in an equivalent analgesic requirement, decrease in haemoglobin and hospital stay as tubeless PCNL. It has a significantly lower incidence of early haematuria, better clearance rates and preserves the option of check nephroscopy. It can be considered as an accepted standard of care, with the preserved advantages of tubeless PCNL.
© 2010 THE AUTHORS. JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2010 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20151965     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09223.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  17 in total

Review 1.  The efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Haichao Yuan; Shuo Zheng; Liangren Liu; Ping Han; Jia Wang; Qiang Wei
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2011-01-30

2.  Comparison one-step procedure with two-step procedure in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Szu-Han Chen; Wen-Jeng Wu; Yii-Her Chou; Hsin-Chih Yeh; Chia-Chun Tsai; Kuang-Shun Chueh; Nien-Ting Hou; Siou-Jin Chiu; Hung-Pin Tu; Ching-Chia Li
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  [Uretero(reno)scopy: management of complications].

Authors:  T Knoll; G Wendt-Nordahl
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 4.  [S2k guidelines on diagnostics, therapy and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis (AWMF 043/025) : Compendium].

Authors:  T Knoll; T Bach; U Humke; A Neisius; R Stein; M Schönthaler; G Wendt-Nordahl
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: keeping the bridge for one night.

Authors:  Ahmed R El-Nahas; Ahmed A Shokeir
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2011-11-01

6.  Determinants of nephrostomy tube dislodgment after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  David Bayne; Eric R Taylor; Lindsay Hampson; Thomas Chi; Marshall L Stoller
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Randomized prospective trial of tubeless versus conventional minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Yong Lu; Ji-Gen Ping; Xiao-Jun Zhao; Lin-Kun Hu; Jin-Xian Pu
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-08-19       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Intraoperative patient selection for tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Joo Yong Lee; Kyu Hyun Kim; Man Deuk Kim; Doo Yong Chung; Kang Su Cho
Journal:  Int Surg       Date:  2014 Sep-Oct

9.  Is an overnight stay after percutaneous nephrolithotomy safe?

Authors:  Fahad Alyami; Richard W Norman
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2012-08-29

Review 10.  Non-compliance with randomised allocation and missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Temitope E Adewuyi; Graeme MacLennan; Jonathan A Cook
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2015-09-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.