PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of a totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) by comparing the clinical outcomes and cost analysis between standard PCNL and totally tubeless PCNL for renal stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From June 2012 to September 2013, a total of 121 patients with renal stones who underwent totally tubeless or standard PCNL by two experienced surgeons were retrospectively evaluated by group. According to the surgeon's preference for the nephrostomy tube and/or ureteral stent, the present study was designed to be divided into Group 1 and Group 2. Group 1 was performed by one surgeon (H.J. Cho) who preferred a totally tubeless PCNL and Group 2 was performed by the other surgeon (S.H. Hong) who preferred a standard PCNL. We excluded bilateral renal stones, multiple approach, whole staghorn calculi, and previous renal surgery. Patient and stone characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative parameters, and cost analysis were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the patient demographics between groups. Mean stone burden was 501.5±361.1 mm(2) in Group 1 v 535.2±353.1 mm(2) in Group 2 (P=0.651). Length of hospital stay (1.72±0.58 v 4.10±1.88 days, P<0.001), postoperative pain scores using a visual analog scale (day 0: P<0.001, day 1: P=0.002), and analgesia requirements (33.2±21.3 v 45.2±19.5 mg, P=0.005) for Group 1 v Group 2 showed significant differences. The stone-free rate was 86.4% v 89.8% in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively (P=0.609). There were no significant differences in overall complications between groups (P=0.213). Mean total medical treatment costs in Groups 1 and 2 were 2398.22±549.1 USD and 2845.70±824.2 USD, respectively (P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Many clinical outcomes in the totally tubeless PCNL showed comparable or better results than standard PCNL. We believe that totally tubeless PCNL is an acceptable, safe, and cost-effective alternative to standard PCNL for the treatment of renal stones.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of a totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) by comparing the clinical outcomes and cost analysis between standard PCNL and totally tubeless PCNL for renal stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From June 2012 to September 2013, a total of 121 patients with renal stones who underwent totally tubeless or standard PCNL by two experienced surgeons were retrospectively evaluated by group. According to the surgeon's preference for the nephrostomy tube and/or ureteral stent, the present study was designed to be divided into Group 1 and Group 2. Group 1 was performed by one surgeon (H.J. Cho) who preferred a totally tubeless PCNL and Group 2 was performed by the other surgeon (S.H. Hong) who preferred a standard PCNL. We excluded bilateral renal stones, multiple approach, whole staghorn calculi, and previous renal surgery. Patient and stone characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative parameters, and cost analysis were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the patient demographics between groups. Mean stone burden was 501.5±361.1 mm(2) in Group 1 v 535.2±353.1 mm(2) in Group 2 (P=0.651). Length of hospital stay (1.72±0.58 v 4.10±1.88 days, P<0.001), postoperative pain scores using a visual analog scale (day 0: P<0.001, day 1: P=0.002), and analgesia requirements (33.2±21.3 v 45.2±19.5 mg, P=0.005) for Group 1 v Group 2 showed significant differences. The stone-free rate was 86.4% v 89.8% in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively (P=0.609). There were no significant differences in overall complications between groups (P=0.213). Mean total medical treatment costs in Groups 1 and 2 were 2398.22±549.1 USD and 2845.70±824.2 USD, respectively (P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Many clinical outcomes in the totally tubeless PCNL showed comparable or better results than standard PCNL. We believe that totally tubeless PCNL is an acceptable, safe, and cost-effective alternative to standard PCNL for the treatment of renal stones.
Authors: Ömer Sarılar; Faruk Özgör; Onur Küçüktopçu; Burak Uçpınar; Mehmet Fatih Akbulut; Metin Savun; Zafer Gökhan Gürbüz; Murat Binbay Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2017-05-03
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
Authors: Matthew Hudnall; Manint Usawachintachit; Ian Metzler; David T Tzou; Brittany Harrison; Errol Lobo; Thomas Chi Journal: Urology Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 2.649