Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Urology 5/2013

01-10-2013 | Original Article

Randomized prospective trial of tubeless versus conventional minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Authors: Yong Lu, Ji-gen Ping, Xiao-jun Zhao, Lin-kun Hu, Jin-xian Pu

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 5/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) without nephrostomy drainage tubes.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 32 eligible patients with kidney stones at our hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to a conventional mPCNL group (ureteric Double-J stents and nephrostomy drainage tubes) or a tubeless mPCNL group (ureteric catheter but no drainage tubes). A single experienced surgeon performed all operations.

Results

At baseline, the two groups had similar age, maximum stone diameter, and gender distribution. There were no significant differences in operation time, presence of postoperative fever, stone clearance, and level of postoperative serum hemoglobin. However, the tubeless mPCNL group had significantly shorter hospital stays (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.032) and significantly less back pain (5 patients vs. 14 patients, p = 0.003) than the conventional mPCNL group.

Conclusions

No significant differences were found between conventional and tubeless mPCNL in safety issues and stone clearance rate. However, patients treated with tubeless mPCNL had shorter hospitalization stays and were less likely to experience back pain.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Shah HN, Kausik V, Hegde SS, Shah JN, Bansal MB (2005) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective feasibility study and review of previous reports. BJU Int 96:879–883PubMedCrossRef Shah HN, Kausik V, Hegde SS, Shah JN, Bansal MB (2005) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective feasibility study and review of previous reports. BJU Int 96:879–883PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M (2009) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD007044 Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M (2009) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD007044
3.
go back to reference Shah H, Khandkar A, Sodha H, Kharodawala S, Hegde S, Bansal M (2009) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: 3 years of experience with 454 patients. BJU Int 104:840–846PubMedCrossRef Shah H, Khandkar A, Sodha H, Kharodawala S, Hegde S, Bansal M (2009) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: 3 years of experience with 454 patients. BJU Int 104:840–846PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Cheng F, Yu W, Zhang X, Yang S, Xia Y, Ruan Y (2010) Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones. J Endourol 24:1579–1582PubMedCrossRef Cheng F, Yu W, Zhang X, Yang S, Xia Y, Ruan Y (2010) Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones. J Endourol 24:1579–1582PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Wickham JE, Miller RA, Kellett MJ, Payne SR (1984) Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: one stage or two? Br J Urol 56:582–584PubMedCrossRef Wickham JE, Miller RA, Kellett MJ, Payne SR (1984) Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: one stage or two? Br J Urol 56:582–584PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Shah HN, Mahajan AP, Hegde SS, Bansal M (2008) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with previous ipsilateral open renal surgery: a feasibility study with review of literature. J Endourol 22:19–24PubMedCrossRef Shah HN, Mahajan AP, Hegde SS, Bansal M (2008) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with previous ipsilateral open renal surgery: a feasibility study with review of literature. J Endourol 22:19–24PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Rana AM, Mithani S (2007) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: call of the day. J Endourol 21:169–172PubMedCrossRef Rana AM, Mithani S (2007) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: call of the day. J Endourol 21:169–172PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Singh I, Singh A, Mittal G (2008) Tubeless Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it really less morbid? J Endourol 223:427–434CrossRef Singh I, Singh A, Mittal G (2008) Tubeless Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it really less morbid? J Endourol 223:427–434CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Winfield HN, Weyman P, Clayman RV (1986) Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: complications of premature nephrostomy tube removal. J Urol 136:77–79PubMed Winfield HN, Weyman P, Clayman RV (1986) Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: complications of premature nephrostomy tube removal. J Urol 136:77–79PubMed
10.
go back to reference Shah HN, Sodha HS, Khandkar AA, Kharodawala S, Hegde SS, Bansal MB (2008) A randomised trial evaluating type of nephrostomy drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: small bore vs tubeless. J Endourol 22:1433–1439PubMedCrossRef Shah HN, Sodha HS, Khandkar AA, Kharodawala S, Hegde SS, Bansal MB (2008) A randomised trial evaluating type of nephrostomy drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: small bore vs tubeless. J Endourol 22:1433–1439PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Zilberman DE, Lipkin ME, deRosette JJ, Ferrandino MN, Mamoulakis C, Laguna MP, Preminger GM (2010) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy—the new standard of care? J Urol 184:1261–1266PubMedCrossRef Zilberman DE, Lipkin ME, deRosette JJ, Ferrandino MN, Mamoulakis C, Laguna MP, Preminger GM (2010) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy—the new standard of care? J Urol 184:1261–1266PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Agrawal MS, Agrawal M, Gupta A (2008) A randomized comparison of tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 22:439–442PubMedCrossRef Agrawal MS, Agrawal M, Gupta A (2008) A randomized comparison of tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 22:439–442PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference 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 172:565–567PubMedCrossRef 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 172:565–567PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Crook TJ, Lockyer CR, Keoghane SR, Walmsley BH (2008) A randomized controlled trial of nephrostomy placement versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 180:612–614PubMedCrossRef Crook TJ, Lockyer CR, Keoghane SR, Walmsley BH (2008) A randomized controlled trial of nephrostomy placement versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 180:612–614PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Kurien A, Ganpule A, Muthu V, Desai M (2010) Questioning the wisdom of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective randomized controlled study of early tube removal vs tubeless PCNL. BJU Int 106:1045–1049PubMedCrossRef Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Kurien A, Ganpule A, Muthu V, Desai M (2010) Questioning the wisdom of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective randomized controlled study of early tube removal vs tubeless PCNL. BJU Int 106:1045–1049PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Randomized prospective trial of tubeless versus conventional minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Authors
Yong Lu
Ji-gen Ping
Xiao-jun Zhao
Lin-kun Hu
Jin-xian Pu
Publication date
01-10-2013
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 5/2013
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0921-2

Other articles of this Issue 5/2013

World Journal of Urology 5/2013 Go to the issue