Advertisement

Day-surgery percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a high-volume center retrospective experience

  • Xiangkun Wu
  • Zhijian Zhao
  • Hongling Sun
  • Chao Cai
  • Zhilin Li
  • Donglong Cheng
  • Huacai Zhu
  • Guohua ZengEmail author
  • Yongda LiuEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is traditionally performed on an inpatient basis. We determine the safety and outcome of day-surgery PCNL by experienced surgeon hands.

Patients and methods

A protocol for day-surgery PCNL was undertaken. A retrospective analysis of all 86 cases of planned day-surgery PCNL accomplished by an experienced surgeon who followed this protocol between May 2017 and March 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, operative data, complications, and readmission rates were recorded. Day-surgery PCNL was defined as discharge of patients either the same day or within 24 h after surgery.

Results

The average stone burden was 361.1 mm2 and 70 (81.4%) of patients had multiple stones or staghorn stones. 82 (95.4%) patients achieved same-day discharge or received overnight observation prior to discharge, and 4 patients (4.6%) required full admission (longer than 24 h). The readmission rate was 2.3% (2 patients). The postoperative complications occurred in 10 (11.6%) patients, including 7, 2, 2 of grade I, II, III complications. The average operation time was 64 min and the hemoglobin drop was 15.7 ± 16.9 g/L. The established tracts size ranged from 16 to 22Fr. The stone clearance rate was 90.7%. The tubeless without nephrostomy tube was performed in 60.5%. Eight cases were performed by multiple-tracts PCNL with 2–4 tracts, with only two case required full admission.

Conclusion

Experienced surgeons who performed day-surgery PCNL experience excellent patient outcomes in appropriately selected patients. Most complications can be treated conservatively and only a few required intervention or readmission.

Keywords

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy Day-surgery PCNL Multiple tracts Staghorn stone Outcomes 

Notes

Author contributions

YL had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: GZ, YL. Acquisition of data: XW, ZZ, HS, ZL, HZ, DC, CC. Analysis and interpretation of data: XW, ZZ. Drafting of the manuscript: ZZ, XW. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: ZZ, YL. Statistical analysis: XW. Supervision: GZ, YL. Other: none.

Funding

This study was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81600542). Additional funding was provided by Guangzhou Science Technology and Innovation Commission (Nos. 201604020001 and 201704020193). The project of Health and Family planning Commission of Guangzhou Municipality(No. 20181A010051).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Financial disclosures

Yongda Liu certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (e.g., employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: None.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Zeng G, Mai Z, Xia S et al (2017) Prevalence of kidney stones in China: an ultrasonography based cross-sectional study. BJU Int 120:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fernström I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10:257–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ghani KR, Andonian S, Bultitude M et al (2016) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: update, trends, and future directions. Eur Urol 70:382–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zeng G, Wan S, Zhao Z et al (2016) Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP): a new concept in technique and instrumentation. BJU Int 117:655–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nguyen D-D, Luo JW, Tailly T et al (2019) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy access: a systematic review of intraoperative assistive technologies. J Endourol 3(5):358–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seitz C, Desai M, Häcker A et al (2012) Incidence, prevention, and management of complications following percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Eur Urol 61:146–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alyami F, Norman RW (2012) Is an overnight stay after percutaneous nephrolithotomy safe? Arab J Urol 10:367–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beiko D, Lee L (2010) Outpatient tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the initial case series. Can Urol Assoc J 4:E86–E90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bechis SK, Han DS, Abbott JE et al (2018) Outpatient percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the UC San Diego health experience. J Endourol 32:394–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jones P, Bennett G, Dosis A, et al (2018) Safety and efficacy of day-case percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review from european society of uro-technology. Eur Urol Focus.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.04.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singh I, Kumar A, Kumar P (2005) “Ambulatory PCNL” (tubeless PCNL under regional anesthesia)—a preliminary report of 10 cases. Int Urol Nephrol 37:35–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wu H, Wang Z, Zhu S et al (2018) Uroseptic shock can be reversed by early intervention based on leukocyte count 2 h post-operation: animal model and multicenter clinical cohort study. Inflammation 41:1835–1841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhu W, Li J, Yuan J et al (2017) A prospective and randomised trial comparing fluoroscopic, total ultrasonographic, and combined guidance for renal access in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. BJU Int 119:612–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schoenfeld D, Zhou T, Stern JM (2019) Outcomes for patients undergoing ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 33:189–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    El-Nahas AR, Elshal AM, El-Tabey NA et al (2016) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones: a randomised trial comparing high-power holmium laser versus ultrasonic lithotripsy. BJU Int 118:307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Opondo D, Tefekli A, Esen T et al (2012) Impact of case volumes on the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 62:1181–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huang W-Y, Wu S-C, Chen Y-F et al (2014) Surgeon volume for percutaneous nephrolithotomy is associated with medical costs and length of hospital stay: a nationwide population-based study in Taiwan. J Endourol 28:915–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tepeler A, Karatag T, Tok A et al (2016) Factors affecting hospital readmission and rehospitalization following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 34:69–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kreydin EI, Eisner BH (2013) Risk factors for sepsis after percutaneous renal stone surgery. Nat Rev Urol 10:598–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zheng J, Li Q, Fu W et al (2015) Procalcitonin as an early diagnostic and monitoring tool in urosepsis following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urolithiasis 43:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coley KC, Williams BA, DaPos SV et al (2002) Retrospective evaluation of unanticipated admissions and readmissions after same day surgery and associated costs. J Clin Anesth 14:349–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiangkun Wu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Zhijian Zhao
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hongling Sun
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Chao Cai
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Zhilin Li
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Donglong Cheng
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Huacai Zhu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Guohua Zeng
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Yongda Liu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery CenterThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Guangzhou Institute of UrologyGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Guangdong Key Laboratory of UrologyGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations