Retrospective comparison of tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Esat Korğalı; Hüseyin Saygın; İsmail Emre Ergin; Emre Kıraç

doi:10.7197/cmj.vi.681945

EN TR

Retrospective comparison of tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Abstract

Objective: Comparison of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (tPCNL) and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sPCNL) performed in renal stone surgeries in terms of patient comfort, post-operative hospitalization time and complications.

Method: In our clinic, sPCNL was performed by placing a nephrostomy catheter in 87 patients out of 133 patients, and tPCNL was performed by placing a Double J catheter in 46 patients.

Results: There was no statistical difference between the two patient groups in data such as age, gender, stone size, guy's score, stone variable, and side (p>0.05). Also in the perioperative data; operation time, stone-free rates, perioperative hemoglobin decrease, blood transfusion, and statistical difference between the two groups were not found (p>0.05). There was no significant difference between stone groups such as stonelessness rate, post-op hemoglobin decrease, operation time and stone properties such as stone size, guy's score, stone variable (p>0.05). Analgesia dose, length of hospitalization, return to activity (p=0.001), fever during post-op period (p=0.016), urine leakage from the nephrostomy tract (p=0.002) were found to be statistically significant lower in the tPCNL group. More tPCNL was performed on the upper pole stones which was found statistically significant (p=0.008).

Conclusions: Tubeless PCNL operation is an end urological method that can be applied effectively and safely by experienced surgeons with advantages such as less pain in early postoperative period, shorter hospitalization, returning to physical activity earlier, less fever and less urine leakage than nephrostomy tract.

Keywords

Tüpsüz ve standart perkütan nefrolitotominin retrospektif olarak karşılaştırılması

Öz

Amaç: Renal taş cerrahilerinde yapılan tüpsüz perkütan nefrolitotomi (tPCNL) ve tüplü perkütan nefrolitotominin (sPCNL) etkinliği, hasta konforu, post operatif yatış süresi ve komplikasyonlar açısından kıyaslanması.

Yöntem: Kliniğimizde PCNL yapılan 133 hastadan 87 hastaya standart olarak nefrostomi kateteri yerleştirilerek yapılan sPCNL ve 46 hastaya Double J kateter yerleştirilerek uygulanan tPCNL yapıldı.

Bulgular: Yaş, cinsiyet, taş boyutu, Guy taş skoru, taş değişkenliği, taraf gibi verilerde iki hasta grubu arasında istatistiksel fark yoktu (p>0,05). Perioperatif verilerde; operasyon süresi, taşsızlık oranları, peroperatif hemoglobin düşüşü, kan transfüzyonu açısından iki grup arasında istatistiksel fark bulunmadı (p>0,05). Gruplar arasında taşsızlık oranı, post-op hemoglobin düşüklüğü, operasyon süresi gibi ve taş boyutu, Guy taş skoru, taş değişkenliği gibi taş özelliklerde anlamlı farklılık tespit edilemedi (p>0,05). Analjezi dozu, yatış süresi, aktiviteye dönüş (p=0.001), post-op dönemde ateş (p=0,016), nefrostomi traktından idrar kaçağı (p=0,002) tPCNL grubunda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düşük bulundu. Üst pol taşlarına anlamlı olarak daha çok tPCNL yapıldığı (p=0,008) tespit edildi

Sonuç: tPCNL operasyonu, erken postoperatif dönemde daha az ağrı, daha kısa hastanede kalış süresi, erken aktiviteye dönüş, daha az ateş ve nefrostomi traktından daha az idrar kaçağı gibi avantajları ile deneyimli cerrahlar tarafından etkin ve güvenle uygulanabilecek endoürolojik bir yöntemdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Nefrolitotomi perkütan, böbrek taşları, ürolojik cerrahi işlemler

Thanks

İlginiz için şimdiden teşekkürler ...

References

1- Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, et al. EAU Guidelines on Diagnosis and Conservative Management of Urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):468–474. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.040
2- Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J, Gerspach J, Kurtz S, Stout L. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 1997;157:1578-1582.
3- Mercado A, Fernández MI, Recabal P, et al. Immediate postoperative morbidity in patients with indwelling double-J stent versus overnight-externalized ureteral catheter after tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective, randomized study. Urolithiasis 2013;41:253-256.
4- Umut Gonulalan, Tufan Cicek, Okan Istanbulluoglu, Murat Kosan, Bulent Ozturk, Hakan Ozkardes. 2013. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy is effective and safe in short- and long-term urinary drainage. Urolithiasis 41, 341-346.
5- Delnay KM, Wake RW. Safety and efficacy of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 1998;16:375–377.
6- Feng MI, Tamaddon K, Mikhail A, Kapstein JS, Bellman GC. Prospective randomized study of various techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 2001;58:345–350.
7- Agrawal MS, Agrawal M, Gupta A, Bansal S, Yadav A, Goyal J. A randomized comparison of tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2008;22(3):439–442. doi:10.1089/end.2007.0118
8- Paul EM, Marcovich R, Lee BR, Smith AD. Choosing the ideal nephrostomy tube. BJU Int 2003;92:672–677.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Esat Korğalı
0000-0003-0318-0353
Türkiye

Hüseyin Saygın
0000-0002-6875-0882
Türkiye

İsmail Emre Ergin ^*
0000-0002-3115-0533
Türkiye

Emre Kıraç
0000-0002-4466-1615
Türkiye

Publication Date

July 21, 2020

Submission Date

February 2, 2020

Acceptance Date

June 20, 2020

Published in Issue

Year 2020 Volume: 42 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7197/cmj.vi.681945

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA94LU46ZJ

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

AMA

1.Korğalı E, Saygın H, Ergin İE, Kıraç E. Retrospective comparison of tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. CMJ. 2020;42(2):219-223. doi:10.7197/cmj.vi.681945