Araştırma Makalesi

Tüpsüz ve standart perkütan nefrolitotominin retrospektif olarak karşılaştırılması

Cilt: 42 Sayı: 2 21 Temmuz 2020
Cumhuriyet Tıp Dergisi Kapak
Cumhuriyet Tıp Dergisi
PDF İndir
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

Teşekkür

İlginiz için şimdiden teşekkürler ...

Kaynakça

  1. 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. 2- Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J, Gerspach J, Kurtz S, Stout L. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 1997;157:1578-1582.
  3. 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. 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. 5- Delnay KM, Wake RW. Safety and efficacy of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 1998;16:375–377.
  6. 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. 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. 8- Paul EM, Marcovich R, Lee BR, Smith AD. Choosing the ideal nephrostomy tube. BJU Int 2003;92:672–677.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Yayımlanma Tarihi

21 Temmuz 2020

Gönderilme Tarihi

2 Şubat 2020

Kabul Tarihi

20 Haziran 2020

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 1970 Cilt: 42 Sayı: 2

DOI

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

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA94LU46ZJ

Kaynak Göster

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