Journals / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2018 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of outcomes of tubed versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children: A single center study

Pages
56–61
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)

The mean drop in hemoglobin level was0.7±0.1 g/dL and 1.3±0.2 g/dL in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.01).Conclusion: Tubeless PCNL in children is a safe option in well selected cases.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)and tubed PCNL by using small bore nephrostomy tube (12Fr) in children for the management of nephrolithiasis.Material and methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of 35 children where tubed PCNL (Group1) was done in 18, and tubeless PCNL (group 2) in 17 patients from January 2010 to December 2016.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Chartswere reviewed for age, mass, stone size, operative time, hospital stay and stone-free rates.These variableswere compared between the two groups.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The mean drop in hemoglobin level was0.7±0.1 g/dL and 1.3±0.2 g/dL in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.01).Conclusion: Tubeless PCNL in children is a safe option in well selected cases.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)and tubed PCNL by using small bore nephrostomy tube (12Fr) in children for the management of nephrolithiasis.Material and methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of 35 children where tubed PCNL (Group1) was done in 18, and tubeless PCNL (group 2) in 17 patients from January 2010 to December 2016. Chartswere reviewed for age, mass, stone size, operative time, hospital stay and stone-free rates.These variableswere compared between the two groups. SPSS version 21 was used for data analysis. The data were shownas mean±standard deviation for continuous variables.Categorical variables were presented in percentages.Results: There is no difference in terms of age, stone sizes, operative times, hospital stays, stone-free ratesand post-PCNL complications between the two groups (p>0.05). The mean drop in hemoglobin level was0.7±0.1 g/dL and 1.3±0.2 g/dL in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.01).Conclusion: Tubeless PCNL in children is a safe option in well selected cases.

🔖

Cite This Article

IQBAL, N., ASSAD, S., HUSSAIN, I., HASSAN, Y., KHAN, H., FAROOQ, M. A., AKHTER, S. (2018). Comparison of outcomes of tubed versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children: A single center study. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 1, 56–61. https://ajindex.com/articles/379893

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Smaldone MC, Docimo SG, Ost MC. Contemporary surgical man- agement of pediatric urolithiasis. Urol Clin North Am 2010;37:253- 67. [CrossRef] Lao M, Kogan BA, White MD, Feustel PJ. High recurrence rate at 5-year followup in children after upper urinary tract stone surgery. J Urol 2014;191:440-4. [CrossRef] Iqbal N, Shohab D, Hussain I, Sadaf R, Waqar S, Nawaz G, et al. Paediatric Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL). J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2015;25:610-2.
  2. Istanbulluoglu MO, Cicek T, Ozturk B, Gonen M, Ozkardes H. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: nephrostomy or tubeless or totally tubeless? Urology 2010;75:1043-6. [CrossRef] Paul EM, Marcovich R, Lee BR, Smith AD. Choosing the ideal nephrostomy tube. BJU Int 2003;92:672-7. [CrossRef] Ozturk A, Guven S, Kilinc M, Topbaş E, Piskin M, Arslan M. Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it safe and effective in preschool children? J Endourol 2010;24:1935-9. [CrossRef] Desai MR, Kukreja RA, Desai MM, Mhaskar SS, Wani KA, Patel SH, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of type of neph- rostomy drainage following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: large bore versus small bore versus tubeless. J Urol 2004;172:565- 7. [CrossRef] Agrawal MS, Agarwal M. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Large tube, small tube, tubeless, or totally tubeless? Indian J Urol 2013;29:219-24. [CrossRef] Shohab D, Iqbal N, Alam MU, Butt A, Jamil MI, Hussain I, et al. Comparison of Outcome of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Adult Versus Paediatric patients. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2016; 26: 371-3.
  3. Gupta NP, Kesarwani P, Goel R, Aron M. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. A comparative study with standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int 2005;74:58-61. [CrossRef] Kim SC, Tinmouth WW, Kuo RL, Paterson RF, Lingeman JE. Using and choosing a nephrostomy tube after percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large or complex stone disease: a treatment strategy. J Endourol 2005;19:348-52. [CrossRef] Jonnavithula N, Pisapati MV, Durga P, Krishnamurthy V, Chilumu R, Reddy B. Efficacy of peritubal local anesthetic infiltration in alleviating postoperative pain in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2009;23:857-60. [CrossRef] Garofalo M, Pultrone CV, Schiavina R, Brunocilla E, Sanguedolce F, Borghesi M, et al. Tubeless procedure reduces hospitalization and pain after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: results of a multi- variable analysis. Urolithiasis 2013;41:347-53. [CrossRef] Jou YC, Lin CT, Shen CH, Cheng MC, Chen PC. Tubeless percutaneous nep