Literature DB >> 24468916

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

Murat M Rifaioglu1, Kadir Onem, Ibrahim Buldu, Tuna Karatag, Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu.   

Abstract

The aim of our study is to determine the predictive factors for placement of percutaneous nephrostomy tube (PNT) in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) procedure and to evaluate the optimal cutoff points of the predictive factors. 229 patients, who had undergone percutaneous nephrolithotomy operation between February 2009 and February 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. Five patients were excluded from the study because of solitary kidney. All characteristics of 224 patients, stones and operative data were investigated. Patient and stone-related factors, such as age, BMI, history of previous surgery or SWL, characteristics of the stone, renal parenchymal thickness (RPT), as well as procedural factors, such as percutaneous access number and location were analyzed by univariate and multivariate tests. The continuous variables were analyzed using Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. There were no differences in sex, age, BMI and hemoglobin decrease between the groups. Previous operation status, RPT, stone size, multiplicity of the stone, stone localization, blood transfusion presence, access points, access number and operation time were found statistically different according to univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed that RPT, operation time and stone size were the independent factors that affected the PNT insertion. For RPT, operation time and stone size, the optimal cutoff points for insertion PNT were 13.75 mm, 75.5 min and 890 mm(2), respectively. Tubeless PCNL should be chosen in patients with stone area less than 890 mm(2), and parenchymal thickness thicker than 13.75 mm and procedure with operation period <75.5 min.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24468916     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-014-0638-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urolithiasis        ISSN: 2194-7228            Impact factor:   3.436


  33 in total

1.  Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. A comparative study with standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Narmada P Gupta; Pawan Kesarwani; Rajiv Goel; Monish Aron
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.089

2.  Variables that influence operative time during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an analysis of 1897 cases.

Authors:  Tolga Akman; Murat Binbay; Muzaffer Akcay; Erdem Tekinarslan; Cem Kezer; Faruk Ozgor; Mahir Seyrek; Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-07-11       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Chien-Hsing Chang; Chung-Jing Wang; Shi-Wei Huang
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2011-02-18

4.  Total tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qiang Zhong; Changjian Zheng; Junfu Mo; Yongyi Piao; Yu Zhou; Qing Jiang
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  Parenchymal thickness: does it have an impact on outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Authors:  Abdulkadir Tepeler; Murat Binbay; Tolga Akman; Akif Erbin; Cem Kezer; Mesrur Selcuk Silay; Emrah Yuruk; Sina Kardas; Muzaffer Akçay; Abdullah Armagan; Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 2.089

6.  Almost totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: further evolution of the technique.

Authors:  M Goh; J S Wolf
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Tail stent versus re-entry tube: a randomized comparison after percutaneous stone extraction.

Authors:  Evangelos N Liatsikos; David Hom; Caner Z Dinlenc; Rakesh Kapoor; Mihai Alexianu; Paulos Yohannes; Arthur D Smith
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it really less morbid?

Authors:  Iqbal Singh; Arvind Singh; Gyanendra Mittal
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  Pain after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: impact of nephrostomy tube size.

Authors:  Paul K Pietrow; Brian K Auge; Costas D Lallas; Robert W Santa-Cruz; Glenn E Newman; David M Albala; Glenn M Preminger
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 10.  Renal drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Arun K Srinivasan; Amin Herati; Zeph Okeke; Arthur D Smith
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 2.942

View more
  4 in total

1.  Determining standard criteria for tubeless PCNL.

Authors:  Mansur Daggülli; Haluk Söylemez; Mehmet Nuri Bodakci; Namık Kemal Hatipoglu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  The modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy technique and comparison with standard nephrolithotomy: a randomized prospective study.

Authors:  Tolga Karakan; Muhammet Fatih Kilinc; Omer Gokhan Doluoglu; Yildiray Yildiz; Cem Nedim Yuceturk; Murat Bagcioglu; Mehmet Ali Karagöz; Okan Bas; Berkan Resorlu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 3.  Percutaneous stone removal: new approaches to access and imaging.

Authors:  Rick C Slater; Michael Ost
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Tubeless Pediatric Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Assessment of Feasibility and Safety.

Authors:  Ramaiah Keshavamurthy; Sumit Kumar; Vilvapathy Senguttuvan Karthikeyan; Ashwin Mallya; Girish Gurubasappa Nelivigi
Journal:  J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg       Date:  2018 Jan-Mar
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.