CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 596–600

Small Intestinal Submucosa Plug for Closure of Dilated Nephrostomy Tracts: A Pilot Study in Swine

  • Hideyaki Kakizawa
  • M. J. Conlin
  • Dusan Pavcnik
  • Barry T. Uchida
  • Marc Loriaux
  • Young Hwan Kim
  • Frederick S. Keller
  • Josef Rösch
Technical Note


The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy of a plug made of small intestinal submucosa (SIS) for closure of dilated nephrostomy tract in the kidney after nephroscopy. Ten kidneys in 5 swine had nephrostomy tracts dilated up to 8 mm. The SIS plug was placed into the dilated renal cortex under nephroscopic control. Follow-up arteriograms, retrograde pyelograms, and macroscopic and histologic studies at 24 h (n = 4), 6 weeks (n = 2), and 3 months (n = 4) were performed to evaluate the efficacy of the plug. The SIS plug effectively closed the dilated nephrostomy tract. Follow-up studies showed minimal changes of the kidneys, except for 1 small infarction, regarding inflammatory and foreign-body reactions and progressive scarring of the SIS. SIS plug is effective for occlusion of dilated nephrostomy tract after nephroscopy. Its efficacy should be compared with other therapeutic options.


Biomaterial Small Intestinal submucosa Interventional procedures Embolization Kidneys 


  1. 1.
    Srivastava A, Singh KJ, Suri A et al (2005) Vascular complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: are there any predictive factors? Urology 66:38–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Streem SB (2007) Percutaneous stone extraction. In: Smith LD, Badlami GH, Bagley DH, Clayman RO, Docimo SG, Jordan GH (eds) Smith’s textbook of endourology. Decker, Hamilton, London, pp 127–141Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delnay KM, Wake RW (1998) Safety and efficacy of tubeless percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. World J Urol 16:375–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Limb J, Bellman GC (2002) Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery: review of first 112 patients. Urology 59:527–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karami H, Jabbari M, Arbab AH (2007) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: five years of experience in 201 patients. J Endourol 21:1411–1413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crook TJ, Lockyer CR, Keoghane SR et al (2008) A randomized controlled trial of nephrostomy placement versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 180:612–624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mikhail AA, Kaptein JS, Bellman GC (2003) Use of fibrin glue in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 61(5):910–914CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Noller MW, Baughman SM, Morey AF et al (2004) Fibrin sealant enables tubeless percutaneous stone surgery. J Urol 172(1):166–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shah HN, Hegde S, Shah JN et al (2006) A prospective, randomized trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of fibrin sealant in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 176(6 Pt 1):2488–24492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee DI, Uribe C, Eichel L et al (2004) Sealing percutaneous nephrolithotomy tracts with gelatin matrix hemostatic sealant: initial clinical use. J Urol 171(2 Pt 1):575–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Borin JF, Sala LG, Eichel L et al (2005) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy using hemostatic gelatin matrix. J Endourol 19:614–617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yu DS (2006) Gelatin packing of intracortical tract after percutaneous nephrostomy lithotripsy for decreasing bleeding and urine leakage. J Chin Med Assoc 69:162–165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schick V (2006) Sealing of percutaneous nephrolithotomy access after complete stone removal with a hemostyptic gelatin powder (Spongostan). Aktuelle Urol 37:52–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aghamir SM, Khazaeli MH, Meisami A (2006) Use of Surgicel for sealing nephrostomy tract after totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 20:293–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uribe CA, Eichel L, Khonsari S et al (2005) What happens to hemostatic agents in contact with urine? An in vitro study. J Endourol 19:312–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim IY, Eichel L, Edwards R et al (2007) Effects of commonly used hemostatic agents on the porcine collecting system. J Endourol 21:652–654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim MD, Hoppe H, Pavcnik D et al (2007) Percutaneous vein occlusion with small intestinal submucosa: an experimental pilot study in swine and sheep. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 30:725–730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Badylak SF (2007) The extracellular matrix as a biologic scaffold material. Biomaterials 28(25):3587–3593CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khor E (1997) Methods for the treatment of collagenous tissue for bioprostheses. Biomaterials 18:95–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schoen FJ, Levy RJ (2005) Calcification of tissue heart valve substitute: progress toward understanding and prevention. Am Thorac Surg 79:1072–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lu Wei, Pavcnik D, Uchida B et al (2008) The ovine jugular vein as a model for interventional radiology procedures. Radiol Oncol 42:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hideyaki Kakizawa
    • 1
  • M. J. Conlin
    • 2
  • Dusan Pavcnik
    • 1
  • Barry T. Uchida
    • 1
  • Marc Loriaux
    • 3
  • Young Hwan Kim
    • 1
  • Frederick S. Keller
    • 1
  • Josef Rösch
    • 1
  1. 1.Dotter Interventional InstituteOregon Health Sciences UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Division of Urology, Department of SurgeryOregon Health Sciences UniversityPortlandUSA
  3. 3.Department of PathologyOregon Health Sciences UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations