Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Urolithiasis 3/2014

01.06.2014 | Original Paper

Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: yes but when? A multicentre retrospective cohort study

verfasst von: Murat M. Rifaioglu, Kadir Onem, Ibrahim Buldu, Tuna Karatag, Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu

Erschienen in: Urolithiasis | Ausgabe 3/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The aim of our study is to determine the predictive factors for placement of percutaneous nephrostomy tube (PNT) in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) procedure and to evaluate the optimal cutoff points of the predictive factors. 229 patients, who had undergone percutaneous nephrolithotomy operation between February 2009 and February 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. Five patients were excluded from the study because of solitary kidney. All characteristics of 224 patients, stones and operative data were investigated. Patient and stone-related factors, such as age, BMI, history of previous surgery or SWL, characteristics of the stone, renal parenchymal thickness (RPT), as well as procedural factors, such as percutaneous access number and location were analyzed by univariate and multivariate tests. The continuous variables were analyzed using Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. There were no differences in sex, age, BMI and hemoglobin decrease between the groups. Previous operation status, RPT, stone size, multiplicity of the stone, stone localization, blood transfusion presence, access points, access number and operation time were found statistically different according to univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed that RPT, operation time and stone size were the independent factors that affected the PNT insertion. For RPT, operation time and stone size, the optimal cutoff points for insertion PNT were 13.75 mm, 75.5 min and 890 mm2, respectively. Tubeless PCNL should be chosen in patients with stone area less than 890 mm2, and parenchymal thickness thicker than 13.75 mm and procedure with operation period <75.5 min.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Desai MR, Kukreja RA, Desai MM, Mhaskar SS, Wani KA, Patel SH, Bapat SD (2004) A prospective randomized comparison of type of nephrostomy drainage following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: large bore versus small bore versus tubeless. J Urol 172(2):565–567. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000130752.97414.c8 PubMedCrossRef Desai MR, Kukreja RA, Desai MM, Mhaskar SS, Wani KA, Patel SH, Bapat SD (2004) A prospective randomized comparison of type of nephrostomy drainage following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: large bore versus small bore versus tubeless. J Urol 172(2):565–567. doi:10.​1097/​01.​ju.​0000130752.​97414.​c8 PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Liatsikos EN, Hom D, Dinlenc CZ, Kapoor R, Alexianu M, Yohannes P, Smith AD (2002) Tail stent versus re-entry tube: a randomized comparison after percutaneous stone extraction. Urology 59(1):15–19PubMedCrossRef Liatsikos EN, Hom D, Dinlenc CZ, Kapoor R, Alexianu M, Yohannes P, Smith AD (2002) Tail stent versus re-entry tube: a randomized comparison after percutaneous stone extraction. Urology 59(1):15–19PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Wickham JE, Miller RA, Kellett MJ, Payne SR (1984) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: one stage or two? Br J Urol 56(6):582–585PubMedCrossRef Wickham JE, Miller RA, Kellett MJ, Payne SR (1984) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: one stage or two? Br J Urol 56(6):582–585PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Feng MI, Tamaddon K, Mikhail A, Kaptein JS, Bellman GC (2001) Prospective randomized study of various techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 58(3):345–350PubMedCrossRef Feng MI, Tamaddon K, Mikhail A, Kaptein JS, Bellman GC (2001) Prospective randomized study of various techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 58(3):345–350PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Gupta NP, Kesarwani P, Goel R, Aron M (2005) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. A comparative study with standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int 74(1):58–61. doi:10.1159/000082711 PubMedCrossRef Gupta NP, Kesarwani P, Goel R, Aron M (2005) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. A comparative study with standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Int 74(1):58–61. doi:10.​1159/​000082711 PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Ziaee SA, Sichani MM, Kashi AH, Samzadeh M (2010) Evaluation of the learning curve for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J 7(4):226–231PubMed Ziaee SA, Sichani MM, Kashi AH, Samzadeh M (2010) Evaluation of the learning curve for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol J 7(4):226–231PubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Rifaioglu MM, Onem K, Celik H, Davarci M, Cetinkaya M, Inci M, Yetisken AG, Yalcınkaya FR (2013) Does renal parenchymal thickness affect bleeding in percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Turkish J Med Sci 43(6):878–885. doi:10.3906/sag-1206-108 CrossRef Rifaioglu MM, Onem K, Celik H, Davarci M, Cetinkaya M, Inci M, Yetisken AG, Yalcınkaya FR (2013) Does renal parenchymal thickness affect bleeding in percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Turkish J Med Sci 43(6):878–885. doi:10.​3906/​sag-1206-108 CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Tiselius HG AP, Buck C, Gallucci M, Knoll T, Sarica K, Türk C. (2009) Guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Assoc Urol 1–115 Tiselius HG AP, Buck C, Gallucci M, Knoll T, Sarica K, Türk C. (2009) Guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Assoc Urol 1–115
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Rassweiler JJ, Renner C, Eisenberger F (2000) The management of complex renal stones. BJU Int 86(8):919–928PubMedCrossRef Rassweiler JJ, Renner C, Eisenberger F (2000) The management of complex renal stones. BJU Int 86(8):919–928PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Marchant F, Recabal P, Fernandez MI, Osorio F, Benavides J (2011) Postoperative morbidity of tubeless versus conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective comparative study. Urol Res 39(6):477–481. doi:10.1007/s00240-011-0367-9 PubMedCrossRef Marchant F, Recabal P, Fernandez MI, Osorio F, Benavides J (2011) Postoperative morbidity of tubeless versus conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective comparative study. Urol Res 39(6):477–481. doi:10.​1007/​s00240-011-0367-9 PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Goh M, Wolf JS Jr (1999) Almost totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: further evolution of the technique. J Endourol 13(3):177–180PubMedCrossRef Goh M, Wolf JS Jr (1999) Almost totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: further evolution of the technique. J Endourol 13(3):177–180PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Mikhail AA, Kaptein JS, Bellman GC (2003) Use of fibrin glue in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 61(5):910–914 discussion 914PubMedCrossRef Mikhail AA, Kaptein JS, Bellman GC (2003) Use of fibrin glue in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 61(5):910–914 discussion 914PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim SC, Tinmouth WW, Kuo RL, Paterson RF, Lingeman JE (2005) Using and choosing a nephrostomy tube after percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large or complex stone disease: a treatment strategy. J Endourol 19(3):348–352. doi:10.1089/end.2005.19.348 PubMedCrossRef Kim SC, Tinmouth WW, Kuo RL, Paterson RF, Lingeman JE (2005) Using and choosing a nephrostomy tube after percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large or complex stone disease: a treatment strategy. J Endourol 19(3):348–352. doi:10.​1089/​end.​2005.​19.​348 PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Akman T, Binbay M, Akcay M, Tekinarslan E, Kezer C, Ozgor F, Seyrek M, Muslumanoglu AY (2011) Variables that influence operative time during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an analysis of 1897 cases. J Endourol 25(8):1269–1273. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0061 PubMedCrossRef Akman T, Binbay M, Akcay M, Tekinarslan E, Kezer C, Ozgor F, Seyrek M, Muslumanoglu AY (2011) Variables that influence operative time during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an analysis of 1897 cases. J Endourol 25(8):1269–1273. doi:10.​1089/​end.​2011.​0061 PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Tepeler A, Binbay M, Akman T, Erbin A, Kezer C, Silay MS, Yuruk E, Kardas S, Akcay M, Armagan A, Muslumanoglu AY (2013) Parenchymal thickness: does it have an impact on outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urol Int 90(4):405–410. doi:10.1159/000346336 PubMedCrossRef Tepeler A, Binbay M, Akman T, Erbin A, Kezer C, Silay MS, Yuruk E, Kardas S, Akcay M, Armagan A, Muslumanoglu AY (2013) Parenchymal thickness: does it have an impact on outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urol Int 90(4):405–410. doi:10.​1159/​000346336 PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 Nephrol 41(3):541–545. doi:10.1007/s11255-008-9517-6 PubMedCrossRef 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 Nephrol 41(3):541–545. doi:10.​1007/​s11255-008-9517-6 PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Guven S, Istanbulluoglu O, Gul U, Ozturk A, Celik H, Aygun C, Ozdemir U, Ozturk B, Ozkardes H, Kilinc M (2011) Successful percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children: multicenter study on current status of its use, efficacy and complications using Clavien classification. J Urol 185(4):1419–1424. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.055 PubMedCrossRef Guven S, Istanbulluoglu O, Gul U, Ozturk A, Celik H, Aygun C, Ozdemir U, Ozturk B, Ozkardes H, Kilinc M (2011) Successful percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children: multicenter study on current status of its use, efficacy and complications using Clavien classification. J Urol 185(4):1419–1424. doi:10.​1016/​j.​juro.​2010.​11.​055 PubMedCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Amer T, Ahmed K, Bultitude M, Khan S, Kumar P, De Rosa A, Khan MS, Hegarty N (2012) Standard versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review. Urol Int 88(4):373–382. doi:10.1159/000336145 PubMedCrossRef Amer T, Ahmed K, Bultitude M, Khan S, Kumar P, De Rosa A, Khan MS, Hegarty N (2012) Standard versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review. Urol Int 88(4):373–382. doi:10.​1159/​000336145 PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: yes but when? A multicentre retrospective cohort study
verfasst von
Murat M. Rifaioglu
Kadir Onem
Ibrahim Buldu
Tuna Karatag
Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu
Publikationsdatum
01.06.2014
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Urolithiasis / Ausgabe 3/2014
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Elektronische ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-014-0638-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2014

Urolithiasis 3/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.