Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Postoperative morbidity of tubeless versus conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective comparative study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PNL) is an established technique for the treatment of renal calculi. Some reports have challenged the need for a nephrostomy tube at the end of the procedure, arguing that it accounts for a longer hospital stay and increased postoperative pain. During the last years, several series have addressed the feasibility and safety of tubeless PNL, where a double-J ureteral stent is left in place after the end of intervention instead of a nephrostomy tube. The aim of our study was to compare conventional versus tubeless PNL in terms of postoperative morbidity. Eighty-five patients who underwent PNL at a single center met the inclusion criteria (complete intraoperative stone clearance, no evidence of active intraoperative bleeding, single percutaneous access, and operative time shorter than 2 h) and were randomized at the end of the procedure to have placed either a nephrostomy tube (group 1) or a double-J ureteral stent (group 2). Outcomes assessed were postoperative pain, bleeding complications, leakage complications, and length of hospital stay. The patients in the tubeless group had a shorter hospital stay (3.7 vs. 5.8 days; P < 0.001), and less postoperative pain at postoperative days 2 and 3 (P < 0.001). No significant difference in bleeding or leakage complications was observed. This study supports the feasibility and safety of tubeless PNL in a selected group of the patients, suggesting some intraoperative criteria to be considered when performing it. However, further controlled studies will have to determine its impact on stone-free rates prior to be considered the standard technique in these selected cases.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Uribarri J, Oh MS, Carroll HJ (1989) The first kidney stone. Ann Intern Med 111:1006–1009

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Alken P, Hutschenreiter G, Gunther R (1982) Percutaneous kidney stone removal. Eur Urol 8(5):304–311

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Clayman RV, Surya V, Miller RP et al (1984) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: extraction of renal and ureteral calculi from 100 patients. J Urol 131(5):868–871

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Segura JW, Patterson DE, LeRoy AJ et al (1985) Percutaneous removal of kidney stones: review of 1, 000 cases. J Urol 134(6):1077–1081

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Goodwin WE, Casey WC, Woolf W (1955) Percutaneous trocar (needle) nephrostomy in hydronephrosis. J Am Med Assoc 157(11):891–894

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Morris DS, Wei JT, Taub DA et al (2006) Temporal trends in the use of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 175:1731–1736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Deane LA, Clayman RV (2007) Advances in percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. Urol Clin North Am 34:383–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ramakumar S, Segura JW (2000) Renal calculi: percutaneous management. Urol Clin North Am 27:617–622

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J et al (1997) Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 157(5):1578–1582

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sofer M, Beri A, Friedman A et al (2007) Extending the application of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 70(3):412–416 discussion 416–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Crook TJ, Lockyer CR, Keoghane SR et al (2008) A randomized controlled trial of nephrostomy placement versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 180:612–614

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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(2):565–567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Agrawal MS, Agrawal M, Gupta A et al (2008) A randomized comparison of tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 22(3):439–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bodian CA, Freedman G, Hossain S et al (2001) The visual analog scale for pain: clinical significance in postoperative patients. Anesthesiology 95(6):1356–1361

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Delnay KM, Wake RW (1998) Safety and efficacy of tubeless percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. World J Urol 16(6):375–377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Limb J, Bellman GC (2002) Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery: review of first 112 patients. Urology 59(4):527–531 discussion 531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shah HN, Kausik VB, Hegde SS et al (2005) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective feasibility study and review of previous reports. BJU Int 96(6):879–883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rana AM, Mithani S (2007) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: call of the day. J Endourol 21(2):169–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shah HN, Sodha HS, Khandkar AA et al (2008) A randomized trial evaluating type of nephrostomy drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: small bore vs tubeless. J Endourol 22(7):1433–1439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Damiano R, Oliva A, Esposito T et al (2002) Early and late complications of double pigtail ureteral stent. Urol Int 69:136–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Vega Vega A, García Alonso D, García Alonso CJ (2007) Characterization of urinary tract symptoms and quality of life in patients with double-pig-tailed ureteral stents. Actas Urol Esp 31(7):738–742

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pryor JL, Langley MJ, Jenkins AD (1991) Comparison of symptom characteristics of indwelling ureteral catheters. J Urol 145(4):719–722

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Vallejo Herrador J, Burgos Revilla FJ, Alvarez Alba J et al (1998) Double J ureteral catheter. Clinical complications. Arch Esp Urol 51(4):361–373

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, Keeley FX Jr et al (2001) Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of quality of life to aid outcome analysis. J Endourol 15:151–154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Leibovici D, Cooper A, Lindner A et al (2005) Ureteral stents: morbidity and impact on quality of life. Isr Med Assoc J 7(8):491–494

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Matin SF, Feeley T, Kennamer D (2009) Office cystoscopy and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies pose minimal risk: prospective evaluation of 921 procedures. Urology 73(6):1175–1178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Bensalah K et al (2010) Residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: cost comparison of immediate second look flexible nephroscopy versus expectant management. J Urol 183(1):188–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro Recabal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marchant, F., Recabal, P., Fernández, M.I. et al. Postoperative morbidity of tubeless versus conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective comparative study. Urol Res 39, 477–481 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-011-0367-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-011-0367-9

Keywords

Navigation