World Journal of Urology

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 1563–1568 | Cite as

Nephrostomy in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): does nephrostomy tube size matter? Results from The Global PCNL Study from The Clinical Research Office Endourology Society

  • Luigi Cormio
  • Glenn Preminger
  • Christian Saussine
  • Niels Peter Buchholz
  • Xiaochun Zhang
  • Helena Walfridsson
  • Andreas J. Gross
  • Jean de la RosetteEmail author
Original Article



To explore the relationships between nephrostomy tube (NT) size and outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).


The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) prospectively collected data from consecutive patients treated with PCNL over a 1-year period at 96 participating centers worldwide. This report focuses on the 3,968 patients who received a NT of known size. Preoperative, surgical procedure and outcome data were analyzed according to NT size, dividing patients into two groups, namely small-bore (SB; nephrostomy size ≤ 18 Fr) and large-bore (LB; nephrostomy size > 18 Fr) NT.


Patients who received a LB NT had a significantly lower rate of hemoglobin reduction (3.0 vs. 4.3 g/dL; P < 0.001), overall complications (15.8 vs. 21.4 %; P < 0.001) and a trend toward a lower rate of fever (9.1 vs. 10.7 %). Patients receiving a LB NT conversely had a statistically, though not clinically significant, longer postoperative hospital stay (4.4 vs. 4.2 days; P = 0.027). There were no differences in urinary leakage (0.9 vs. 1.3 %, P = 0.215) or stone-free rates (79.5 vs. 78.1 %, P = 0.281) between the two groups.


LB NTs seem to reduce bleeding and overall complication rate. These findings would suggest that if a NT has to be placed, it should better be a LB one.


Exit strategy Nephrostomy tube size Renal access Complications PCNL 



The Global PCNL Study was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Olympus.

Conflict of interest

No competing financial interests exist.


  1. 1.
    De Sio M, Autorino R, Quattrone C, Giugliano F, Balsamo R, D’Armiento M (2011) Choosing the nephrostomy size after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 29(6):707–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fernström I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10(3):257–259PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pietrow PK, Auge BK, Lallas CD, Santa-Cruz RW, Newman GE, Albala DM, Preminger GM (2003) Pain after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: impact of nephrostomy tube size. J Endourol 17(6):411–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maheshwari PN, Andankar MG, Bansal M (2000) Nephrostomy tube after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: large-bore or pigtail catheter? J Endourol 14(9):735–737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borges CF, Fregonesi A, Silva D, Sasse AD (2010) Systematic review and meta-analysis of nephrostomy placement versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 24(11):1738–1746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ni S, Qiyin C, Tao W, Liu L, Jiang H, Hu H, Han R, Wang C (2011) 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 77(6):1293–1298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yuan H, Zheng S, Liu L, Han P, Wang J, Wei Q (2011) The efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Res 39(5):401–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang J, Zhao C, Zhang C, Fan X, Lin Y, Jiang Q (2012) Tubeless vs standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. BJU Int 109(6):918–924PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choi M, Brusky J, Weaver J, Amantia M, Bellman GC (2006) Randomized trial comparing modified tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy with tailed stent with percutaneous nephrostomy with small-bore tube. J Endourol 20(10):766–770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shah HN, Sodha HS, Khandkar AA, Kharodawala S, Hegde SS, Bansal MB (2008) A randomized trial evaluating type of nephrostomy drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: small bore v tubeless. J Endourol 22(7):1433–1439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Straub M, Seitz C (2010) EAU guidelines on urolithiasis 2010.
  12. 12.
    de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M, Gutierrez J, Lingeman J, Scarpa R, Tefekli A, CROES PCNL Study Group (2011) The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 25(1):11–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibañes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graefen M (2010) The modified Clavien system: a plea for a standardized reporting system for surgical complications. Eur Urol 57(3):387–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De la Rosette JJMCH, Opondo D, Daels FPJ, Giusti G, Serrano A, Kandasami SV, Wolf JS, Grabe M, Gravas S, on behalf of the CROES PCNL Study group (2012) Categorisation of complications and validation of the Clavien score for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Eur Urol 62(2):246–255Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K, Sari E, Berberoglu Y, Baykal M, Sarilar O, Muslumanoglu AY (2008) Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 53(1):184–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zuazu JR, Hruza M, Rassweiler JJ, de la Rosette JJ (2010) The Clavien classification system to optimize the documentation of PCNL morbidity. Arch Ital Urol Androl 82(1):20–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yamaguchi A, Skolarikos A, Buchholz N-P, Chomón GB, Grasso M, Saba P, Nakada S, de la Rosette J, Clinical Research Office Of The Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Study Group (2011) Operating times and bleeding complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparison of tract dilation methods in 5537 patients in the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study. J Endourol 25(6):933–939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cormio L, Gonzalez GI, Tolley D, Sofer M, Muslumanoglu A, Klingler H-C, Stolzenburg J-U, de al Rosette J (2012) Exit strategies following percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): A comparison of surgical outcomes in The Clinical Research Office of The Endourological Society (CROES) PCNL Global Study. World J Urol (in press)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cormio L, Perrone A, Di Fino G, Ruocco N, De Siati M, de la Rosette J, Carrieri G (2012) TachoSil® sealed tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy to reduce urine leakage and bleeding: outcome from a randomized controlled study. J Urol 188(1):145–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luigi Cormio
    • 1
  • Glenn Preminger
    • 2
  • Christian Saussine
    • 3
  • Niels Peter Buchholz
    • 4
  • Xiaochun Zhang
    • 5
  • Helena Walfridsson
    • 6
  • Andreas J. Gross
    • 7
  • Jean de la Rosette
    • 8
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of FoggiaFoggiaItaly
  2. 2.Department of UrologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of UrologyUniversity of StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  4. 4.Department of UrologyBarts & The London NHS TrustLondonUK
  5. 5.Department of UrologyPeking University First HospitalBeijingChina
  6. 6.Department of UrologyUniversity HospitalOrebroSweden
  7. 7.Department of UrologyAsklepios Hospital BarmbekHamburgGermany
  8. 8.Department of UrologyAMC University HospitalAmsterdam Z-OThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations