Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy is effective and safe in short- and long-term urinary drainage

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with ureteral catheter or double-J stent in comparison with standard PCNL in our study. We retrospectively evaluated 707 of 1,469 patients with stone area under 800 mm2 and only one subcostal nephrostomy access that was underwent PCNL between March 2004 and October 2011 in our clinic. Patients with 14F nephrostomy tube (Malecot or Re-entry catheter), with ureteral stent and with antegrade double-J stent were included into Group 1 (n = 180), Group 2 (n = 148) and Group 3 (n = 120), respectively. The mean hospitalization time of patients in Group 1 was significantly longer. The mean VAS was significantly higher in Group 1. On the other hand the mean fluoroscopy and operation time of patients in Group 2 were significantly shorter in comparison with other groups. Number of patients with postoperative transfusion requirement was significantly higher in Group 1. The number of patients with postoperative narcotic analgesic requirement was also significantly higher in Group 1. The most frequent complication in our study was prolonged drainage. The postoperative complications were seen more frequently in Group 1. Both ureter catheter and double j stent were more comfortable, effective and safe in urinary drainage following PCNL with single sub-costal access. On the other hand, double-J stent has a disadvantage as requirement additional cystoscopy for removal. We suggest ureter catheter or double-J stent to preserve short- and long-term urinary drainage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J, Gerspach J, Kurtz S, Stout L (1997) Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 157:1578–1582

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Istanbulluoglu MO, Cicek T, Ozturk B, Gonen M, Ozkardes H (2010) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: nephrostomy or tubeless or totally tubeless? Urology 75:1043–1046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jun-Ou J, Lojanapiwat B (2010) Supracostal access: does it affect tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy efficacy and safety? Int Braz J Urol 36:171–176

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Marchant F, Recabal P, Fernandez MI, Osorio F, Benavides J (2011) Postoperative morbidity of tubeless versus conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective comparative study. Urol Res 39:477–481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ni S, Qiyin C, Tao W et al (2011) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy is associated with less pain and shorter hospitalization compared with standard or small bore drainage: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trails. Urology 77:1293–1298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tefekli A, Altunrende F, Tepeler K, Tas A, Aydin S, Muslumanoglu AY (2007) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients: a prospective randomized comparison. Int Urol Nephrol 39:57–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wickham JE, Miller RA, Kellett MJ, Payne SR (1984) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: one stage or two? Br J Urol 56:582–585

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Tiselius HG, Andersson A (2003) 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? Eur Urol 43:275–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bodian CA, Freedman G, Hossain S, Eisenkraft JB, Beilin Y (2001) The visual analog scale for pain: clinical significance in postoperative patients. Anesthesiology 95:1356–1361

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lojanapiwat B, Soonthornphan S, Wudhikarn S (2001) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients. J Endourol 15:711–713

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Delnay KM, Wake RW (1998) Safety and efficacy of tubeless percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. World J Urol 16:375–377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Goh M, Wolf JS Jr (1999) Almost totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: further evolution of the technique. J Endourol 13:177–180

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mikhail AA, Kaptein JS, Bellman GC (2003) Use of fibrin glue in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 61:910–914

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chang CH, Wang CJ, Huang SW (2011) Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized controlled study. Urol Res 39:459–465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sofikerim M, Demirci D, Huri E, Ersekerci E, Karacagil M (2007) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: safe even in supracostal access. J Endourol 21:967–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tefekli A, Karadag MA, Tepeler K et al (2008) Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified Clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 53:184–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang J, Zhao C, Zhang C, Fan X, Lin Y, Jiang Q (2012) Tubeless vs standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. BJU Int 109:918–924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51:899–906

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee WJ, Smith AD, Cubelli V et al (1987) Complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Am J Roentgenol 148:177–180

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Aron M, Yadav R, Goel R et al (2005) Multi-tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large complete staghorn calculi. Urol Int 75:327–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Agrawal MS, Agrawal M, Gupta A, Bansal S, Yadav A, Goyal J (2008) A randomized comparison of tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 22:439–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Srivastava A, Singh KJ, Suri A (2005) Vascular complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: are there any predictive factors? Urology 66:38–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dogan HS, Sahin A, Çetinkaya Y, Akdogan B, Ozden E, Kendi S (2002) Antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study in 81 patients. J Endourol 16:649–653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gallucci M, Fortunato P, Schettini M, Vincenzoni A (1998) Management of hemorrhage after percutaneous renal surgery. J Endourol 12:509–512

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Shoma AM, Elshal AM (2012) Nephrostomy tube placement after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: critical evaluation through a prospective randomized study. Urology 79:771–776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kuzgunbay B, Turunc T, Akin S, Ergenoglu P, Arıbogan A, Ozkardes H (2009) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy under general versus combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. J Endourol 23:1835–1838

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Karacalar S, Bilen CY, Sarihasan B, Sarikaya S (2009) Spinal-epidural anesthesia versus general anesthesia in the management of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. J Endourol 23:1591–1597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Amer T, Ahmed K, Bultitude M et al (2012) Standard versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review. Urol Int 88:373–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Konya Research and Training Hospital, School of Medicine, Baskent University, Saray Street No. 1 Selcuklu, Konya, Turkey

    Umut Gonulalan, Tufan Cicek, Murat Kosan & Bulent Ozturk

  2. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Mevlana University, Konya, Turkey

    Okan Istanbulluoglu

  3. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey

    Hakan Ozkardes

Authors
  1. Umut Gonulalan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tufan Cicek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Okan Istanbulluoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Murat Kosan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bulent Ozturk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hakan Ozkardes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Umut Gonulalan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gonulalan, U., Cicek, T., Istanbulluoglu, O. et al. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy is effective and safe in short- and long-term urinary drainage. Urolithiasis 41, 341–346 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0560-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0560-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation