Comparison of standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy and total tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine position.
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Supine position
Total tubeless
Visual analog scale
Journal
Urolithiasis
ISSN: 2194-7236
Titre abrégé: Urolithiasis
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101602699
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Jun 2024
04 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
13
03
2024
accepted:
06
05
2024
medline:
4
6
2024
pubmed:
4
6
2024
entrez:
4
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare the efficacy, safety and advantages of the total tubeless (TT) percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and standard PCNL in the supine position. This study was carried out at İzmir Tepecik Health Application and Research Center. A total of 87 patients were examined. Forty-three patients who underwent TT procedure were defined as Group 1, and 44 patients who underwent standard procedure with a nephrostomy tube were defined as Group 2. Two techniques were evaluated with demographic data and outcome parameters. Univariate regression analyses were performed in these data sets for the parameters that predicted the TT procedure. The demographic data of the groups and all characteristics of the stones were similar. When the results were examined, the stone-free rates detected by non-contrast computed tomography (CT) in the postoperative 1st month were similar between the groups. Complication rates and secondary intervention rates were similar. Operation and fluoroscopy times were shorter in group 1, which were not statistically significant. Postoperative hemoglobin decreased, and creatinine values were similar. In Group 1, mean postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores and the percentage of VAS reporting > 5 points for pain level measurement were lower and statistically significant. In the univariate analysis of the factors predicting the TT procedure, no significant results were found in any parameter. Performing TT PCNL in the supine position in selected patients reduces postoperative pain without affecting the complication rates as in prone PCNL. Our study is the first to compare TT and standard PCNL in supine position.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38833070
doi: 10.1007/s00240-024-01580-5
pii: 10.1007/s00240-024-01580-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
82Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Ghani KR, Andonian S, Bultitude M, Desai M, Giusti G, Okhunov Z, Preminger GM, de la Rosette J (2016) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: update, trends, and future directions. Eur Urol 70(2):382–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.047
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.047
pubmed: 26876328
Fernström I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy a new extraction technique. Scand J urol nephrol. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.1976.11882084
doi: 10.1080/21681805.1976.11882084
pubmed: 1006190
Valdivia Uría JG, Lachares Santamaría E, Villarroya Rodríguez S, Taberner Llop J, Abril Baquero G, Aranda Lassa JM (1987) Nefrolitectomía percutánea: técnica simplificada (nota previa) [Percutaneous nephrolithectomy: simplified technic (preliminary report)]. Arch Esp Urol 40(3):177–180
pubmed: 3619512
Falahatkar S, Moghaddam AA, Salehi M, Nikpour S, Esmaili F, Khaki N (2008) Complete supine percutaneous nephrolithotripsy comparison with the prone standard technique. J Endourol 22(11):2513–2517. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0463
doi: 10.1089/end.2008.0463
pubmed: 19046091
Paul EM, Marcovich R, Lee BR, Smith AD (2003) Choosing the ideal nephrostomy tube. BJU Int 92(7):672–677. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2003.04454.x
doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2003.04454.x
pubmed: 14616443
Akman T, Binbay M, Yuruk E et al (2011) Tubeless procedure is most important factor in reducing length of hospitalization after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: results of univariable and multivariable models. Urology 77(2):299–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.06.060
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.06.060
pubmed: 20970842
Amer T, Ahmed K, Bultitude M et al (2012) Standard versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review. Urol Int 88(4):373–382. https://doi.org/10.1159/000336145
doi: 10.1159/000336145
pubmed: 22433470
Mandhani A, Goyal R, Vijjan V, Dubey D, Kapoor R (2007) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy–should a stent be an integral part? J Urol 178(3):921–924
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.021
pubmed: 17632155
Zhong Q, Zheng C, Mo J, Piao Y, Zhou Y, Jiang Q (2013) Total tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. J Endourol 27(4):420–426. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2012.0421
doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0421
pubmed: 23078125
Tefekli A, Karadag MA, Tepeler K et al (2008) Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 53(1):184–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2007.06.049
doi: 10.1016/J.EURURO.2007.06.049
pubmed: 17651892
Kamphuis GM, Baard J, Westendarp M, de La Rosette JJ (2015) Lessons learned from the CROES percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study. World J Urol 33:223–233
doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1367-5
pubmed: 25100624
Feng MI, Tamaddon K, Mikhail A, Kaptein JS, Bellman GC (2001) Prospective randomized study of various techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 58(3):345–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01225-0
doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01225-0
pubmed: 11549477
Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J, Gerspach J, Kurtz S, Stout L (1997) Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 157(5):1578–1582
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64799-2
pubmed: 9112480
Borges CF, Fregonesi A, Silva DC, Sasse AD (2010) Systematic review and meta-analysis of nephrostomy placement versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J endourol Adv online publ. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0231
doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0231
Aghamir SM, Hosseini SR, Gooran S (2004) Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 18(7):647–648. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2004.18.647
doi: 10.1089/end.2004.18.647
pubmed: 15597653
Karami H, Gholamrezaie HR (2004) Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients. J Endourol 18(5):475–476. https://doi.org/10.1089/0892779041271580
doi: 10.1089/0892779041271580
pubmed: 15253824
Rana AM, Bhojwani JP, Junejo NN, Das Bhagia S (2008) Tubeless PCNL with patient in supine position: procedure for all seasons?–with comprehensive technique. Urology 71(4):581–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.059
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.059
pubmed: 18279935
Chang CH, Wang CJ, Huang SW (2011) Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized controlled study. Urol Res 39(6):459–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-011-0363-0
doi: 10.1007/s00240-011-0363-0
pubmed: 21331773
Istanbulluoglu MO, Ozturk B, Gonen M, Cicek T, Ozkardes H (2009) Effectiveness of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients: a prospective randomized study. Int Urol Neprol. 41:541–545
doi: 10.1007/s11255-008-9517-6
Li Q, Gao L, Li J, Zhang Y, Jiang Q (2020) Total tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. MITAT : Off J Soc Minim Invasive Therapy 29(2):61–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2019.1581224
doi: 10.1080/13645706.2019.1581224
Gupta S, Maurya AK, Pal DK (2018) Observational prospective study for surgical outcome and anesthetic feasibility of tubeless and totally tubeless supine PCNL: a single centre initial experience. Turk J Urol 45:146–149
doi: 10.5152/tud.2018.97345
pubmed: 30875292
pmcid: 6368044