Randomized prospective trial of tubeless versus conventional minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Yong Lu ; Ji-gen Ping ; Xiao-jun Zhao ; Lin-kun Hu ; Jin-xian Pu
• 关键词：mPCNL ; Tubeless ; Complication ; Nephrostomy drainage tubes
• 刊名：World Journal of Urology
• 出版年：2013
• 出版时间：October 2013
• 年：2013
• 卷：31
• 期：5
• 页码：1303-1307
• 全文大小：180KB
• 参考文献：1. Shah HN, Kausik V, Hegde SS, Shah JN, Bansal MB (2005) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective feasibility study and review of previous reports. BJU Int 96:879-83 CrossRef
  2. Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M (2009) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD007044
  3. Shah H, Khandkar A, Sodha H, Kharodawala S, Hegde S, Bansal M (2009) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: 3?years of experience with 454 patients. BJU Int 104:840-46 CrossRef
  4. Cheng F, Yu W, Zhang X, Yang S, Xia Y, Ruan Y (2010) Minimally invasive tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones. J Endourol 24:1579-582 CrossRef
  5. Wickham JE, Miller RA, Kellett MJ, Payne SR (1984) Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: one stage or two? Br J Urol 56:582-84 CrossRef
  6. Shah HN, Mahajan AP, Hegde SS, Bansal M (2008) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with previous ipsilateral open renal surgery: a feasibility study with review of literature. J Endourol 22:19-4 CrossRef
  7. Rana AM, Mithani S (2007) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: call of the day. J Endourol 21:169-72 CrossRef
  8. Singh I, Singh A, Mittal G (2008) Tubeless Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it really less morbid? J Endourol 223:427-34 CrossRef
  9. Winfield HN, Weyman P, Clayman RV (1986) Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: complications of premature nephrostomy tube removal. J Urol 136:77-9
  10. Shah HN, Sodha HS, Khandkar AA, Kharodawala S, Hegde SS, Bansal MB (2008) A randomised trial evaluating type of nephrostomy drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: small bore vs tubeless. J Endourol 22:1433-439 CrossRef
  11. Zilberman DE, Lipkin ME, deRosette JJ, Ferrandino MN, Mamoulakis C, Laguna MP, Preminger GM (2010) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy—the new standard of care? J Urol 184:1261-266 CrossRef
  12. Agrawal MS, Agrawal M, Gupta A (2008) A randomized comparison of tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 22:439-42 CrossRef
  13. Desai MR, Kukreja RA, Desai MM et al (2004) A prospective randomized comparison of type of nephrostomy drainage following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: large bore versus small bore versus tubeless. J Urol 172:565-67 CrossRef
  14. Crook TJ, Lockyer CR, Keoghane SR, Walmsley BH (2008) A randomized controlled trial of nephrostomy placement versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 180:612-14 CrossRef
  15. Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Kurien A, Ganpule A, Muthu V, Desai M (2010) Questioning the wisdom of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective randomized controlled study of early tube removal vs tubeless PCNL. BJU Int 106:1045-049 CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Yong Lu (1)
  Ji-gen Ping (1)
  Xiao-jun Zhao (1)
  Lin-kun Hu (1)
  Jin-xian Pu (1)
  
  1. Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, 188 Shizi Street, Suzhou, 215006, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China
  
• ISSN：1433-8726

文摘

Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) without nephrostomy drainage tubes. Methods We prospectively enrolled 32 eligible patients with kidney stones at our hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to a conventional mPCNL group (ureteric Double-J stents and nephrostomy drainage tubes) or a tubeless mPCNL group (ureteric catheter but no drainage tubes). A single experienced surgeon performed all operations. Results At baseline, the two groups had similar age, maximum stone diameter, and gender distribution. There were no significant differences in operation time, presence of postoperative fever, stone clearance, and level of postoperative serum hemoglobin. However, the tubeless mPCNL group had significantly shorter hospital stays (3 vs. 4?days, p?=?0.032) and significantly less back pain (5 patients vs. 14 patients, p?=?0.003) than the conventional mPCNL group. Conclusions No significant differences were found between conventional and tubeless mPCNL in safety issues and stone clearance rate. However, patients treated with tubeless mPCNL had shorter hospitalization stays and were less likely to experience back pain.