Literature DB >> 26123752

Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy with non-absorbable hemostatic sealant (Quikclot®) versus nephrostomy tube placement: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Kyo Chul Koo1, Sang Un Park1, Ho Sung Jang1, Chang-Hee Hong2.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) using a non-absorbable hemostatic sealant (Quikclot(®)) as an adjunct compared to nephrostomy tube placement in patients exhibiting significant parenchymal bleeding following PNL. We identified 113 PNL cases performed between May 2011 and October 2014. For patients with insignificant parenchymal bleeding following stone removal, defined as a clear visualization of the surgical field at full irrigation of the nephroscope, tubeless PNL was performed. For patients with significant parenchymal bleeding, we introduced the tubeless Quikclot(®) technique as of September 2013 and have performed it ever since. Formerly, nephrostomy placement PNL was performed. In this study, 40 Quikclot(®) applied PNL cases were matched with an equal number of nephrostomy placement cases by propensity scoring based on body mass index, stone size, and Guy's stone score. The mean postoperative drop in hematocrit was comparative between the Quikclot(®) group and the nephrostomy group on both postoperative days 1 (p = 0.459) and 2 (p = 0.325). Quikclot(®) application was associated with lower VAS scores throughout the postoperative period, lower cumulative analgesic requirement (p = 0.025), and with shorter hospitalization (p = 0.002). Complication rates were comparable with no need for blood transfusions in any patients. Tubeless Quikclot(®) PNL was safe and provided effective hemostasis of significant parenchymal bleeding. By avoiding nephrostomy placement, we were able to reduce postoperative pain, analgesic requirements, and hospitalization. Application of Quikclot(®) may be considered prior to nephrostomy placement in patients with significant parenchymal bleeding.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hemostatic agents; Percutaneous nephrostomy; Tubeless

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26123752     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-015-0796-y

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


  19 in total

1.  Closing the tract of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy with gelatine matrix hemostatic sealant can replace nephrostomy tube placement.

Authors:  Udo Nagele; David Schilling; Aristotelis G Anastasiadis; Stefan Corvin; Jörg Seibold; Markus Kuczyk; Arnulf Stenzl; Karl-Dietrich Sievert
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2006-09-18       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Stones: can the Guy's stone score predict PNL outcomes?

Authors:  Brian R Matlaga; Elias S Hyams
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-07-08       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  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

Review 4.  Hemostatic agents used for nephrostomy tract closure after tubeless PCNL: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Cui Yu; Zhou Xu; Wang Long; Liu Longfei; Zeng Feng; Qi Lin; Zu Xiongbing; Chen Hequn
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-07-27       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  What happens to hemostatic agents in contact with urine? An in vitro study.

Authors:  Carlos A Uribe; Louis Eichel; Sepehr Khonsari; David S Finley; Jay Basillote; Hyung Keun Park; Ching Chia Li; Corollos Abdelshehid; David I Lee; Elspeth M McDougall; Ralph V Clayman
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.942

6.  Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nephrostomy Placement Versus Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Claudio F Borges; Adriano Fregonesi; Daniel Carlos Silva; André Deeke Sasse
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2010-10-19       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Stone burden in an average Swedish population of stone formers requiring active stone removal: how can the stone size be estimated in the clinical routine?

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius; Annika Andersson
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Comparison of standard with tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  N P Gupta; Saurabh Mishra; Manav Suryawanshi; Amlesh Seth; Rajeev Kumar
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  Fibrin sealant enables tubeless percutaneous stone surgery.

Authors:  Mark W Noller; Steven M Baughman; Allen F Morey; Brian K Auge
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Assessing the use of haemostatic sealants in tubeless percutaneous renal access and their effect on renal drainage and histology: an experimental porcine study.

Authors:  Christos Rigopoulos; Iason Kyriazis; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Christina Kalogeropoulou; Dimitra Koumoundourou; Ioannis Georgiopoulos; Theodore Petsas; Dimitrios Karnabatidis; Costantinos Constantinides; Evangelos Liatsikos
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-04-03       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  1 in total

1.  The clinical research of 1,470 nm laser in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Yunwu Wang; Xiaolei Tang; Hongye Hu
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-10
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.