Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kidney Drainage and Percutaneous Tract Closure

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and ECIRS

  • 920 Accesses

Abstract

Exit strategy after PNL, irrespective to the patient’s position, is an area of continuous innovation to improve its outcomes and minimize its morbidity. Traditionally, a nephrostomy tube at the conclusion of a PNL was left for kidney drainage, hemostasis and tract healing, and allowance for postoperative renal access. During the years, various modifications have been made in the design and size of the nephrostomy tubes. Recently, the possibility of avoiding nephrostomy tube placement (tubeless but stented or totally tubeless PNL) has become real, according to definite inclusion criteria. The various techniques to establish hemostasis of a tubeless access tract are also reported, with particular reference to the use of hemostatic agents.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Paul EM, Marcovich R, Lee BR, Smith AD (2003) Choosing the ideal nephrostomy tube. BJU Int 92:672–677

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Srinivasan AK, Herati A, Okeke Z, Smith AD (2009) Renal drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 23:1743–1749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Maheshwari PN, Andankar MG, Bansal M (2000) Nephrostomy tube after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: large-bore or pigtail catheter? J Endourol 14:735–737

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Liatsikos EN, Hom D, Dinlenc CZ et al (2002) Tail stent versus re-entry tube: a randomized comparison after percutaneous stone extraction. Urology 59:15–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pietrow PK, Auge BK, Lallas CD et al (2003) Pain after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: impact of nephrostomy tube size. J Endourol 17:411–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Desai MR, Kukreja RA, Desai MM et al (2004) A prospective randomized comparison of type of nephrostomy drainage following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: large bore versus small bore versus tubeless. J Urol 172:565–567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kukreja R, Desai M, Patel S, Bapat S (2004) Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study. J Endourol 18:715–722

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Choi M, Brusky J, Weaver J et al (2006) Randomized trial comparing modified tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy with tailed stent with percutaneous nephrostomy with small-bore tube. J Endourol 20:766–770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. De Sio M, Autorino R, Quattrone C et al (2011) Choosing the nephrostomy size after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 29:707–711

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dirim A, Turunc T, Kuzgunbay B et al (2011) Which factors may affect urinary leakage following percutaneous nephrolithotomy? World J Urol 29:761–766

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Shen P, Liu Y, Wang J (2012) Nephrostomy tube-free versus nephrostomy tube for renal drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int 88:298–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Armitage JN, Irving SO, Burgess NA (2012) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the United Kingdom: results of a prospective data registry. Eur Urol 61:1188–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Borges CF, Fregonesi A, Silva DC, Sasse AD (2010) Systematic review and meta-analysis of nephrostomy placement versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 24:1739–1746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Giusti G, Piccinelli A, Taverna G et al (2007) Miniperc? No, thank you! Eur Urol 51:810–815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Etemadian M, Soleimani MJ, Haghighi R et al (2011) Does bleeding during percutaneous nephrolithotomy necessitate keeping the nephrostomy tube? A randomized controlled clinical trial. Urol J 8:21–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Crook TJ, Lockyer CR, Keoghane SR et al (2008) Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: our experience. J Endourol 22:25–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  18. Cormio L, Preminger G, Saussine C et al (2012) Nephrostomy in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): does nephrostomy tube size matter? Results from the Global PCNL Study from the Clinical Research Office of Endourology Society. World J Urol PMID 23073656 (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Agrawal MS, Agrawal M (2010) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Indian J Urol 26:16–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lahme S, Zimmermanns V, Hochmuth A, Liske P (2008) Stones of the upper urinary tract. Update on minimal-invasive endourological treatment. Arch Ital Urol Androl 80:13–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Knoll T, Wezel F, Michel MS et al (2010) Do patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? A comparative prospective study. J Endourol 24:1075–1079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kruck S, Anastasiadis AG, Herrmann TR et al (2012) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an alternative to retrograde intrarenal surgery and shockwave lithotripsy. World J Urol 30:639–646

    Google Scholar 

  23. Karami H, Gholamrezaie HR (2004) Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients. J Endourol 18:475–476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Aghamir SM, Hosseini SR, Gooran S (2004) Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 18:647–648

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Istanbulluoglu MO, Ozturk B, Gonen M et al (2009) Effectiveness of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients. A prospective randomized study. Int Urol Nephrol 41:541–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Falahatkar S, Khosropanah I, Roshani A et al (2008) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones. J Endourol 22:1447–1451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rana AM, Bhojwani JP, Junejo NN, Das Bhagia S (2008) Tubeless PCNL with patient in supine position: procedure for all seasons? With comprehensive technique. Urology 71:581–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shah HN, Kausik VB, Hedge SS et al (2005) Safety and efficacy of bilateral simultaneous tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 66:500–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shah H, Khandkar A, Sodha H et al (2009) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: 3 years of experience with 454 patients. BJU Int 104:840–846

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kara C, Resorlu B, Bayndir M, Unsai A (2010) A randomized comparison of totally tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients. Urology 76:289–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zilberman DE, Lipkin ME, de la Rosette JJ et al (2010) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy – the new standard of care? J Urol 184:1261–1266

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Aghamir SM, Hamidi M, Aloosh M et al (2011) Efficacy and morbidity following PCNL in patients with renal anomalies: the outcome from a randomized study comparing different imaging modalities for assessment. Minerva Urol Nefrol 63:207–212

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jou YC, Shen CH, Lin CT et al (2011) Safety and efficacy of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients on anti-platelet therapy and cirrhotic patients. Urol Res 39:393–396

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Resorlu B, Kara C, Sahin E, Unsal A (2011) Comparison of nephrostomy drainage types following percutaneous nephrolithotomy requiring multiple tracts: single tube versus multiple tubes versus tubeless. Urol Int 87:23–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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 

  37. Wang J, Zhao C, Zhang C et al (2011) Tubeless vs standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. BJU Int 109:918–924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Okeke Z, Andonian S, Srinivasan A et al (2009) Cryotherapy of the nephrostomy tract: a novel technique to decrease the risk of hemorrhage after tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. J Endourol 23:417–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Kurien A et al (2010) Questioning the wisdom of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective randomized controlled study of early tube removal vs tubeless PCNL. BJU Int 106:1045–1049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Li R, Louie MK, Lee HJ et al (2010) Prospective randomized trial of three different methods of nephrostomy tract closure after percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. BJU Int 107:1660–1665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jou YC, Cheng MC, Sheen JH et al (2004) Electrocauterization of bleeding points for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 64:443–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Aron M, Goel R, Kesarwani PK, Guota NP (2004) Hemostasis in tubeless PNL. Point of technique. Urol Int 73:244–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Choe CH, L’Esperance JO, Auge BK (2009) The use of adjunctive hemostatic agents for tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 23:1733–1738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lipkin ME, Mancini JG, Simmons WN et al (2011) Pathologic evaluation of hemostatic agents in percutaneous nephrolithotomy tracts in a porcine model. J Endourol 25:1353–1357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Aghamir SM, Khazaeli MH, Meisami A (2006) Use of Surgicel for sealing nephrostomy tract after totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 20:293–295

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Lee DI, Uribe C, Eichel L et al (2004) Sealing percutaneous nephrolithotomy tracts with gelatin matrix hemostatic sealant: initial clinical use. J Urol 171:575–578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kaufmann OG, Sountoulides P, Kaplan A et al (2009) Skin treatment and tract closure for tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: University of California, Irvine, Technique. J Endourol 23:1739–1741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Eden CG, Sultana SR, Murray KH, Carruthers RK (1997) Extraperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered fibrin-glued pyeloplasty: medium-term results. BJU Int 80:382–389

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Kim IY, Eichel L, Edwards R et al (2007) Effects of commonly used hemostatic agents on the porcine collecting system. J Endourol 21:652–654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Uribe CA, Eichel L, Khonsari S et al (2005) What happens to hemostatic agents in contact with urine? An in vitro study. J Endourol 19:312–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Cottolengo Hospital, via Cottolengo 9, 10152, Torino, Italy

    Cesare Marco Scoffone MD & Cecilia Maria Cracco MD, PhD

  2. Department of Urology, CHU Henri Mondor, 51. Av. du Ml. de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010, Créteil Cedex, France

    András Hoznek MD

Authors
  1. Cesare Marco Scoffone MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. András Hoznek MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cecilia Maria Cracco MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cesare Marco Scoffone MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Of Urology, Cottolengo Hospital, Torino, Italy

    Cesare Marco Scoffone

  2. Service d’Urologie, CHU Henri Mondor, Créteil cedex, France

    András Hoznek

  3. Cottolengo Hospital, Torino, Italy

    Cecilia Maria Cracco

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag France

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Scoffone, C.M., Hoznek, A., Cracco, C.M. (2014). Kidney Drainage and Percutaneous Tract Closure. In: Scoffone, C., Hoznek, A., Cracco, C. (eds) Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and ECIRS. Springer, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0459-0_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0459-0_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Paris

  • Print ISBN: 978-2-8178-0359-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-2-8178-0459-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation