Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2006 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 2

Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients

Seçilmiş olgularda tüpsüz perkütan nefrolitotomi

Pages
240–247
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall, mean operation time, including the preparation period, was 69.6±10.9 (range: 50-115) minutes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: Although placement of nephrostomy tube after completion of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been considered standard practice, several studies advocate 'tubeles' modification in selected uncomplicated patients, in whom second look is not desired.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Between November 2002 and March 2005, 430 patients were treated with PCNL at our institution, and nephrostomy tube was not placed at the end of operation in 38 of them (8.83%) with isolated lower caliceal stones in 21 (mean stone size: 2.9 cm²) and isolated renal pelvis stone in 17 (mean stone size: 3.2 cm²) patients.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, mean operation time, including the preparation period, was 69.6±10.9 (range: 50-115) minutes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2002 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Nefrolitiyaz · Böbrek taşı · Nefrostomi

Abstract

Introduction: Although placement of nephrostomy tube after completion of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been considered standard practice, several studies advocate 'tubeles' modification in selected uncomplicated patients, in whom second look is not desired. Herein, we assessed the safety and outcome of patients undergoing tubeless PCNL. Materials and Methods: Between November 2002 and March 2005, 430 patients were treated with PCNL at our institution, and nephrostomy tube was not placed at the end of operation in 38 of them (8.83%) with isolated lower caliceal stones in 21 (mean stone size: 2.9 cm²) and isolated renal pelvis stone in 17 (mean stone size: 3.2 cm²) patients. Stones were radioopaque in all and none had hydronephrosis. Percutaneous access was done under C-armed fluoroscopy after cyctoscopic placement of ureteral stent in all patients and tract was formed with high-pressure balloon dilatation system. Stone disintegration was performed with a pneumatic lithotriptor. Operative findings, hospital stay, and success rates were retrospectively analyzed in patients managed with tubeless PNL. Results: Mean age of patients managed with the tubeless PCNL was 39.5±13.6 (range: 19-72) years, and there were 18 men and 20 women. Overall, mean operation time, including the preparation period, was 69.6±10.9 (range: 50-115) minutes. An internal ureteral double-J stent had been placed before they were referred to our clinic in 2 cases in the tubeless group. A single lower pole access was done in all patients, and a 94.7% stone-free rate was achieved. No significant intraoperative complication or indication for additional access or second-look PCNL due to residual stones was observed. CT scan in 2 patients and renal ultrasonography in the remaining, obtained for documentation on postoperative day 1, showed no sign of any retroperitoneal collection. Mean length of hospitalization was 1.5±0.3 (range: 1-3) days and 20 (52.6%) of them were discharged home on postoperative day 1. Conclusions: Our results suggest that, tubelecuss PCNL is a cost-effective and safe modification in highly selected patients with simple isolated stones that can be rendered stone free without any significant complication and need for second-look.

Özet

Çalışmamızda, PCNL sonrası nefrostomi tüpü yerleştirmediğimiz 38 olgunun analizi yapılmaktadır. Kliniğimizde, Kasım 2002-Mart 2005 tarihleri arasında PCNL yapılan 430 hastanın 38'sine (%8.83) işlem sonunda nefrostomi tüpü yerleştirilmedi. Bu 38 olgunun 21'inde izole alt kaliks taşı (ortalama taş boyutu: 2.9 cm²), 17'sinde ise izole böbrek pelvis taşı (ortalama taş boyutu: 3.2cm²) vardı ve taşların tümü radyoopaktı. Hiçbirinde belirgin hidronefroz yoktu ve serum biyokimya değerleri normaldi. Perkütan giriş tüm hastalara sistoskopik üreter katateri yerleştirdikten sonra C-kollu floroskopi altında hasta prone pozisyonunda yapıldı. Nefrostomi yolu yüksek basınçlı balon dilatatör sistemi ile oluşturuldu. Tüpsüz PCNL yapılan hastaların yaş ortalaması 39.5±13.6 (19-72) yıldı. Ortalama ameliyat süresi, hazırlık dahil, 69.6±10.9 (50-115) dakika olarak belirlendi. Tüpsüz grupta olgulardan 2'sine, kliniğimize sevk edilmeden önce internal üreteral çift-J stent yerleştirilmişti. Tüpsüz PCNL ile tedavi edilen hastalarda %94.7 taşsızlık elde edildi ve ameliyat sırasında ciddi bir istenmeyen durumla karşılaşılmadı. Bu hastalarda ek bir girişime veya artık taş için ikinci bir PCNL işlemi gerekmedi ve hiçbir olguda ameliyat sonrası kan transfüzyonu gerekmedi. Ameliyat sonrası birinci günde çekilen bilgisayarlı tomografilerde (n: 2) veya böbrek ultrasonografilerinde (n: 36), retroperitoneal koleksiyon bulgusu saptanmadı. Ortalama hastanede yatış süresi 1.5±0.3 (1-3) gündü. Bulgularımız, taşların tamamen temizlendiği, kanama, ekstravazasyon gibi istenmeyen yan etkilerin gözlenmediği, ameliyat süresinin 2 saatten kısa olduğu, tekrar PCNL işleminin gerekmeyeceği uygun seçilmiş olgularda, işlem sonunda nefrostomi tüpü yerleştirilmeden yapılan PCNL'nin güvenli bir uyarlama olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TEFEKLİ, A., TEPELER, A., ALTUNRENDE, F., TOK, A., SARILAR, Ö., MÜSLÜMANOĞLU, A. Y. (2006). Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 2, 240–247. https://ajindex.com/articles/328373

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Matlaga BR, Assimos DG: Changing indications of open stone surgery. Urology; 59: 490-494, 2002
  2. Matlaga BR, Kim SC, Lingeman JE: Improving outco-mes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Access. Eur Urol EAU Update Series; 3: 37-43, 2005
  3. Davidoff R, Bellman GC: Influence of technique of per-cutaneous tract creation on incidence of renal hemorrha-ge. J Urol; 157: 1229-1231, 1997
  4. Limb J, Bellman GC: Tubeless percutaneous renal sur-gery: Review of first 112 cases. Urology; 59: 527-531, 2002
  5. Feng MI, Tamaddon K, Mikhail A, et al: Prospective randomized study of various techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology; 58: 345-350, 2001
  6. Desai MR, Kukreja RA, Desai MM, et al: A prospecti-ve randomized comparison of type of nephrostomy drai-nage following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: Large bore versus small bore versus tubeless. J Urol; 172: 565-567, 2004
  7. Marcovich R, Jacobson AI, Singh J, et al: No panacea for drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endo-urol; 18: 743-747, 2004
  8. Karami H, Gholamrezaie HR: Totally tubeless percuta-neous nephrolithotomy in selected cases. J Endourol; 18: 475-476, 2004
  9. Gupta NP, Kesarwani P, Goel R, Aron M: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. A comparative study with standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int; 74: 58-61, 2005
  10. Candela J, Daidoff R, Gerspach J, Bellman GC: "Tu-beless" percutaneous surgery: A new advance in the tech-nique of percutaneous renal surgery. Tech Urol; 3: 6-11, 1997
  11. Kim S, Tinmouth WW, Kuo RL, et al: Using and choo-sing a nephrostomy tube after percutaneous nephrolitho-tomy for large or complex stone disease: A treatment st-rategy. J Endourol; 19: 348-352, 2005
  12. Pietrow PK, Auge BK, Lallas CD, et al: Pain after per-cutaneous nephrolithotomy: Impact of nephrostomy tube size. J Endourol; 17: 411-415, 2003
  13. Maheshwari PN, Andankar MG, Bansal M: Nephros-tomy tube after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Large-bo-re or pigtail catheter? J Endourol; 14: 735-739, 2000
  14. Liatsikos EN, Hom D, Dinlenc CZ, et al: Tail stent ver-sus re-entry tube: A randomized comparison after percu-taneous stone extraction. Urology; 59: 15-21, 2002
  15. Bellman GC, Daidoff R, Candela J, et al: Tubeless per-cutaneous renal surgery. J Urol; 157: 1578-1582, 1997
  16. Wickham JEA, Miller RA, Kellett MJ, et al: Percuta-neous nephrostholithotomy: One stage or two? Br J Urol; 56: 582-584, 1984
  17. Winfield HN, Weyman P, Clayman RV: Percutaneous nephrostholithotomy: Complicati