INTRODUCTION: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the non-placement of a nephrostomy tube at the end of the procedure. The benefits of a nephrostomy tube placement are numerous as it provides adequate renal drainage. It may also tamponade bleeding and allow for an easier second-look nephroscopy. However, these advantages are mostly theoretical, and the majority of authors consider the nephrostomy tube as a source of morbidity. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this report was to study the efficiency, safety, and morbidity of tubeless PCNL by comparing it to the standard technique. METHODS: This is a unicentric retrospective study of 125 patients who had undergone PCNL for renal lithiasis. We divided the patients into two groups: the standard PCNL group (n = 74) and the tubeless PCNL group (n = 51). The rates of good outcomes, complications, duration of hospitalization, and the degree of postoperative pain were compared between these two groups. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in age, gender, history, and the number of stones treated. There were more staghorn stones in the PCNL group with nephrostomy (p = 0.007) and more pelvicalyceal stones in the tubeless group (p = 0.037). Patients who had the standard PCNL had larger stones (p = 0.008). Patients who had a tubeless PCNL had more postoperative infectious complications than the standard PCNL group (p = 0.042). No statistically significant differences were noted for other complications, good outcomes (p = 0.13), postoperative pain (p = 0.51), and duration of hospitalization (p = 0.16). CONCLUSION: According to the majority of authors, tubeless PCNL is considered a safe and efficient technique. It also provides advantages with less postoperative pain and duration of hospitalization. We believe that a selection bias may exist in most published work concerning routine nephrostomy tube placement.
INTRODUCTION: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the non-placement of a nephrostomy tube at the end of the procedure. The benefits of a nephrostomy tube placement are numerous as it provides adequate renal drainage. It may also tamponade bleeding and allow for an easier second-look nephroscopy. However, these advantages are mostly theoretical, and the majority of authors consider the nephrostomy tube as a source of morbidity. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this report was to study the efficiency, safety, and morbidity of tubeless PCNL by comparing it to the standard technique. METHODS: This is a unicentric retrospective study of 125 patients who had undergone PCNL for renal lithiasis. We divided the patients into two groups: the standard PCNL group (n = 74) and the tubeless PCNL group (n = 51). The rates of good outcomes, complications, duration of hospitalization, and the degree of postoperative pain were compared between these two groups. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in age, gender, history, and the number of stones treated. There were more staghorn stones in the PCNL group with nephrostomy (p = 0.007) and more pelvicalyceal stones in the tubeless group (p = 0.037). Patients who had the standard PCNL had larger stones (p = 0.008). Patients who had a tubeless PCNL had more postoperative infectious complications than the standard PCNL group (p = 0.042). No statistically significant differences were noted for other complications, good outcomes (p = 0.13), postoperative pain (p = 0.51), and duration of hospitalization (p = 0.16). CONCLUSION: According to the majority of authors, tubeless PCNL is considered a safe and efficient technique. It also provides advantages with less postoperative pain and duration of hospitalization. We believe that a selection bias may exist in most published work concerning routine nephrostomy tube placement.