Advertisement

Tubeless PCNL

  • Julian Veser
  • Christian SeitzEmail author
Chapter
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

In the last decades, PCNL experienced enormous technical advancements like miniaturization of the available armamentarium. To further decrease the invasiveness of the procedure, safety and efficacy of different exit strategies like the tubeless PCNL technique have been explored.

A systematic review on tubeless PCNL with focus on current information has been conducted. Different implementations of tubeless techniques have been differentiated and compared to the standard approach of tubed PCNL, including complex cases. Furthermore, supplementary information about the armamentarium of tubed and tubeless PCNL has been summarized.

The majority of the reported studies concluded that a tubeless procedure is associated with less patient discomfort and a shorter hospital stay compared to the standard PCNL. Additionally, no significant difference in the complication rate was observed, including postoperative fever, hematocrit decrease, stone-free rate and urine extravasation.

The decision whether or not to place a nephrostomy tube after PCNL still depends on the clinical judgment and experience of the surgeon. While most of the studies had strict inclusion criteria for tubeless procedures, those parameters have not been clearly defined yet.

Keywords

Tubeless Totally tubeless Stented PCNL Nephrostomy tube Exit strategy PCNL drainage 

References

  1. 1.
    Rupel E, Brown R. Nephroscopy with removal of stone following nephrostomy for obstructive calculous anuria. J Urol. 1941;46:177–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fernstrom I, Johansson B. Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976;10(3):257–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wickham JE, Miller RA, Kellett MJ, Payne SR. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: one stage or two? Br J Urol. 1984;56(6):582–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Winfield HN, Weyman P, Clayman RV. Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: complications of premature nephrostomy tube removal. J Urol. 1986;136(1):77–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J, Gerspach J, Kurtz S, Stout L. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol. 1997;157(5):1578–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maheshwari PN, Andankar MG, Bansal M. Nephrostomy tube after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: large-bore or pigtail catheter? J Endourol. 2000;14(9):735–7; discussion 7–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paul EM, Marcovich R, Lee BR, Smith AD. Choosing the ideal nephrostomy tube. BJU Int. 2003;92(7):672–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cormio L, Preminger G, Saussine C, Buchholz NP, Zhang X, Walfridsson H, et al. Nephrostomy in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): does nephrostomy tube size matter? Results from the global PCNL study from the Clinical Research Office Endourology Society. World J Urol. 2013;31(6):1563–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pietrow PK, Auge BK, Lallas CD, Santa-Cruz RW, Newman GE, Albala DM, et al. Pain after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: impact of nephrostomy tube size. J Endourol. 2003;17(6):411–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marcovich R, Jacobson AI, Singh J, Shah D, El-Hakim A, Lee BR, et al. No panacea for drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2004;18(8):743–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Desai MR, Kukreja RA, Desai MM, Mhaskar SS, Wani KA, Patel SH, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of type of nephrostomy drainage following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: large bore versus small bore versus tubeless. J Urol. 2004;172(2):565–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Türk C, Neisius A, Petřík A, Seitz C, Thomas K, Skolarikos A, EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis. European Association of Urology Guidelines 2019 edition. Arnhem: The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office; 2019.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Istanbulluoglu MO, Cicek T, Ozturk B, Gonen M, Ozkardes H. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: nephrostomy or tubeless or totally tubeless? Urology. 2010;75(5):1043–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zilberman DE, Lipkin ME, de la Rosette JJ, Ferrandino MN, Mamoulakis C, Laguna MP, et al. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy—the new standard of care? J Urol. 2010;184(4):1261–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xun Y, Wang Q, Hu H, Lu Y, Zhang J, Qin B, et al. Tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update meta-analysis. BMC Urol. 2017;17(1):102.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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(6):1293–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jiang H, Huang D, Yao S, Liu S. Improving drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy based on health-related quality of life: a prospective randomized study. J Endourol. 2017;31(11):1131–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen Y, Feng J, Yue Y, Zhao Z, Deng T, Wu W, et al. Externalized ureteral catheter versus double-J stent in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy for upper urinary stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2018;32(7):581–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gonen M, Ozturk B, Ozkardes H. Double-j stenting compared with one night externalized ureteral catheter placement in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2009;23(1):27–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhou Y, Zhu J, Gurioli A, Yuan D, Luo J, Li Z, et al. Randomized study of ureteral catheter vs double-J stent in tubeless minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy patients. J Endourol. 2017;31(3):278–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li Q, Gao L, Li J, Zhang Y, Jiang Q. Total tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2019:1–9.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee JY, Jeh SU, Kim MD, Kang DH, Kwon JK, Ham WS, et al. Intraoperative and postoperative feasibility and safety of total tubeless, tubeless, small-bore tube, and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials. BMC Urol. 2017;17(1):48.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Choi M, Brusky J, Weaver J, Amantia M, Bellman GC. Randomized trial comparing modified tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy with tailed stent with percutaneous nephrostomy with small-bore tube. J Endourol. 2006;20(10):766–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shpall AI, Parekh AR, Bellman GC. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy with antegrade stent tether: clinical experience. J Endourol. 2007;21(9):973–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Kurien A, Ganpule A, Muthu V, Desai M. Questioning the wisdom of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective randomized controlled study of early tube removal vs tubeless PCNL. BJU Int. 2010;106(7):1045–8; discussion 8–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Karami H, Gholamrezaie HR. Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients. J Endourol. 2004;18(5):475–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Husch T, Reiter M, Mager R, Steiner E, Herrmann TR, Haferkamp A, et al. The management of the access tract after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol. 2015;33(12):1921–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kara C, Resorlu B, Bayindir M, Unsal A. A randomized comparison of totally tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients. Urology. 2010;76(2):289–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Akin Y, Basara I, Yucel S, Gulmez H, Ates M, Bozkurt A, et al. Is tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy really less injurious than standard in the midterm? J Endourol. 2013;27(10):1192–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bhat S, Lal J, Paul F. A randomized controlled study comparing the standard, tubeless, and totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures for renal stones from a tertiary care hospital. Indian J Urol. 2017;33(4):310–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Resorlu B, Kara C, Sahin E, Unsal A. Comparison of nephrostomy drainage types following percutaneous nephrolithotomy requiring multiple tracts: single tube versus multiple tubes versus tubeless. Urol Int. 2011;87(1):23–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Agrawal MS, Agrawal M. Are multiple nephrostomy tubes necessary after multitract percutaneous nephrolithotomy? A randomized comparison of single versus multiple nephrostomy tubes. J Endourol. 2009;23(11):1831–4.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Aghamir SMK, Mohseni MG, Hosseini SR, Salavati A, Ganjali H, Fallah MA, et al. Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy is feasible in morbidly obese patients. Turk J Urol. 2017;43(2):162–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kuntz NJ, Neisius A, Astroza GM, Tsivian M, Iqbal MW, Youssef R, et al. Does body mass index impact the outcomes of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? BJU Int. 2014;114(3):404–11.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jackman SV, Hedican SP, Peters CA, Docimo SG. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants and preschool age children: experience with a new technique. Urology. 1998;52(4):697–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nouralizadeh A, Simforoosh N, Shemshaki H, Soltani MH, Sotoudeh M, Ramezani MH, et al. Tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urologia. 2018;85(1):3–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Samad L, Zaidi Z. Tubed vs tubeless PCNL in children. J Pak Med Assoc. 2012;62(9):892–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Aghamir SM, Salavati A, Aloosh M, Farahmand H, Meysamie A, Pourmand G. Feasibility of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy under the age of 14 years: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol. 2012;26(6):621–4.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Song G, Guo X, Niu G, Wang Y. Advantages of tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of preschool children under 3 years old. J Pediatr Surg. 2015;50(4):655–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ozturk A, Guven S, Kilinc M, Topbas E, Piskin M, Arslan M. Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it safe and effective in preschool children? J Endourol. 2010;24(12):1935–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Keshavamurthy R, Kumar S, Karthikeyan VS, Mallya A, Nelivigi GG. Tubeless pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy: assessment of feasibility and safety. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2018;23(1):16–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Iqbal N, Assad S, Hussain I, Hassan Y, Khan H, Farooq MA, et al. Comparison of outcomes of tubed versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children: a single center study. Turk J Urol. 2018;44(1):56–61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shoma AM, Elshal AM. Nephrostomy tube placement after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: critical evaluation through a prospective randomized study. Urology. 2012;79(4):771–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jun-Ou J, Lojanapiwat B. Supracostal access: does it affect tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy efficacy and safety? Int Braz J Urol. 2010;36(2):171–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yan MY, Lin J, Chiang HC, Chen YL, Chen PH. Supra-costal tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy is not associated with increased complication rate: a prospective study of safety and efficacy of supra-costal versus sub-costal access. BMC Urol. 2018;18(1):112.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gonen M, Cicek T, Ozkardes H. Tubeless and stentless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients requiring supracostal access. Urol Int. 2009;82(4):440–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shah HN, Hegde SS, Shah JN, Bansal MB. Safety and efficacy of supracostal access in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2006;20(12):1016–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Altschuler J, Jain R, Ganesan V, Monga M. Supracostal upper pole endoscopic-guided prone tubeless “maxi-percutaneous nephrolithotomy”: a contemporary evaluation of complications. J Endourol. 2019;33(4):274–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sourial MW, Francois N, Box GN, Knudsen BE. Supracostal access tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: minimizing complications. World J Urol. 2019;37(7):1429–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yu C, Xu Z, Long W, Longfei L, Feng Z, Lin Q, et al. Hemostatic agents used for nephrostomy tract closure after tubeless PCNL: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. 2014;42(5):445–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wang J, Zhang C, Tan G, Yang B, Chen W, Tan D. The use of adjunctive hemostatic agents in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. 2014;42(6):509–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kim JJ, Suh YS, Han DH. Urolithiasis. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01126-0.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer CenterMedical University of Vienna, Vienna General HospitalViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations