Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Comparison of Tubeless versus the Standard technique
Objective: The proposed study aimed to assess the utility of tubeless PCNL in terms of efficacy and safety when compared with the standard tubed PCNL.
Materials & Methods: In this study 280 patients (age ranged 08-70 years) who underwent PCNL were included.
Results: The patients were from both genders i.e., 156 males and 124 females. Out of 280 patients, 140 had a 16 FR nephrostomy tube (Group A) whiles an equal number had 4.8F DJ Stent (Group B) for postoperative drainage. A comparison of the postoperative outcome among the two groups was made for a period of two years (November 2017 to October 2019). Neither any significant difference was found in the mean stone size, operative time, nor was stone-free status, nor any major complication observed. The mean hospital stay for group A and group B was 4.5 days (range 3 to 6) and 3.2 days (range 2 to 4) respectively. An early postoperative wound soakage was found in 18 (12.8%) cases of group A in contrast to the group B patients in whom only 2 (1.4%) had soakage.
Conclusion: It was concluded that Tubeless PCNL as compared to the standard tubed PCNL was found more efficacious and safer and it should be adopted as a routine procedure.
2. Fernstrom I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy: a new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1976;10:257-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.04.010
3. Tailly T, Denstedt J. Innovations in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. International Journal of Surgery 2016; 36: 665-672. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.11.007
4. Ni S, Qiyin C, Tao W, Liu L, Jiang H, Hu H, et al. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy is associated with less pain and shorter hospitalization compared with standard or small bore drainage: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Urology. 2011; 77: 1293-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2015.11.005
5. Agrawal MS, Agrawal M. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Indian J Urol 2010;26:16-24. DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.60438
6. Istanbulluoglu OM, Cıcek T, Ozturk B, Gonen M Ozkardes H. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Nephrostomy or Tubeless or Totally Tubeless? Urology 2010; 75:1043-1046. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.104
7. Desai MR, Kukreja RA, Desai MM, Mhaskar SS, Wani KA, Patel SH, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of type of bore nephrostomy drainage following percutaneous nephrolithotomy: large versus small bore versus tubeless. J Urology 2004;172: 565-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000130752.97414.c8
8. Khan N, Khan R, Khan KH, Manzoor S, Khan N, Rahman AU. Tubed vs tubeless PCNL, our experience at North West General Hospital and Research Center, Peshawar. Pak J Surg. 2015;31(3):17-23.DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.104
9. Tu¨ rk C, Petrˇı´k A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016;69:475–82. Doi : 10.1016/j.aju.2017.09.004
10. Yun SI, Lee YH, Kim JS, Cho SR, Kim BS, Kwon JB. Comparative study between standard and totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Korean J Urol 2012;53:785-9. DOI: 10.4111/kju.2012.53.11.785
11. Karaolides T, Moraitis k, Bach C, Masood J, Buchholz N. Positions for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Thirty-five years of evolution. Arab Journal of Urology 2012; 10:307-316. DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2012.06.005
12. Ferakis N, Stavropoulos M. Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal and upper ureteral stones: lessons learned from a review of the literature. Urol Ann 2015;7:141–8. DOI: 10.4103/0974-7796.152927.
13. Gonen M, Basaran B. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: spinal versus general anesthesia. Urol J 2014;11:1211–5.
14. Yuan H, Zheng S, Liu L, Han P, Wang J, Wei Q. The efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Res 2011;39:401–10. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-010-0355-5
15. Ni S, Qiyin C, Tao W, Liu L, Jiang H, Hu H, et al. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy is associated with less pain and shorter hospitalization compared with standard or small bore drainage. Urology 2011;77:1293–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.10.023.
16. Isac W, Rizkala E, Liu X, Noble M, Monga M. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: outcomes with expanded indications. Int Braz J Urol 2014;40:204–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2015.11.005
17. Sebaey A, Khalil MM, Soliman T, Mohey A, Elshaer W, Kandil W, et al. Standard versus tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A randomised controlled trial. Arab journal of urology. 2016 Mar 1;14(1):18-23.DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2015.11.005
18. Husain I, Tahir MM, Ashraf S, Khan MU. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy; randomized comparison of large bore, small bore and tubeless. Professional Med J. 2011; 18: 575-80. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2018.19616
19. Qadir I, Ali M, Subhani GM, Jafari AA, Akmal M, Munir MI, et al. Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL): Comparison of Tubeless versus Conventional Method in terms of Hospital Stay and Duration of Operation. Annals of Punjab Medical College. 2013 Oct 31;7(2):154-60.
20. Sofer M, Beri A, Friedman A, Aviram G, Mabjeesh NA, Chen J et al. Extending the application of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 2007; 70(3): 412-417. DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.60438
21. Nalbant I, Ozturk U, Sener NC, Dede O, Bayraktar AM, Imamoglu MA. The comparison of standard and tubeless percutaneous Nephrolithotomy procedures. Int Braz J Urol. 2012; 38: 795-800. DOI: 10.1590/1414-431X20154878
22. Zhong Q, Zheng C, Mo J, Piao Y, Zhou Y, Jiang Q. Tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A meta analysis. BJU Int. 2012;109:918-924. DOI: 10.1089/end.2012.0421
23. Shen P, Liu Y, Wang J. Nephrostomy tube-free versus nephrostomy tube for renal drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int. 2012;88:298-306. DOI: 10.1159/000332151
24. Zhao PT, Hoenig DM, Smith AD, Okeke Z. A randomized controlled comparison of nephrostomy drainage vs ureteral stent following percutaneous nephrolithotomy using the Wisconsin StoneQOL. Journal of endourology. 2016 Dec 1;30(12):1275-84. DOI: 10.1089/end.2016.0235
Copyright (c) 2021 Zein El Amir, Muhammad Ali Shahiman, Zeeshan Qadeer, Rameez Ahmed Mughal, Ashfaq Ali
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
All research articles published in the Journal of Rawalpindi Medical College (JRMC) are fully open access: immediately freely available to read, download, and share. Copyrights of all articles published in JRMC are retained by the authors. First publication rights are granted to JRMC. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work.
All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.