Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Urolithiasis 6/2015

01.11.2015 | Original Paper

Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy with non-absorbable hemostatic sealant (Quikclot®) versus nephrostomy tube placement: a propensity score-matched analysis

verfasst von: Kyo Chul Koo, Sang Un Park, Ho Sung Jang, Chang-Hee Hong

Erschienen in: Urolithiasis | Ausgabe 6/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) using a non-absorbable hemostatic sealant (Quikclot®) as an adjunct compared to nephrostomy tube placement in patients exhibiting significant parenchymal bleeding following PNL. We identified 113 PNL cases performed between May 2011 and October 2014. For patients with insignificant parenchymal bleeding following stone removal, defined as a clear visualization of the surgical field at full irrigation of the nephroscope, tubeless PNL was performed. For patients with significant parenchymal bleeding, we introduced the tubeless Quikclot® technique as of September 2013 and have performed it ever since. Formerly, nephrostomy placement PNL was performed. In this study, 40 Quikclot® applied PNL cases were matched with an equal number of nephrostomy placement cases by propensity scoring based on body mass index, stone size, and Guy’s stone score. The mean postoperative drop in hematocrit was comparative between the Quikclot® group and the nephrostomy group on both postoperative days 1 (p = 0.459) and 2 (p = 0.325). Quikclot® application was associated with lower VAS scores throughout the postoperative period, lower cumulative analgesic requirement (p = 0.025), and with shorter hospitalization (p = 0.002). Complication rates were comparable with no need for blood transfusions in any patients. Tubeless Quikclot® PNL was safe and provided effective hemostasis of significant parenchymal bleeding. By avoiding nephrostomy placement, we were able to reduce postoperative pain, analgesic requirements, and hospitalization. Application of Quikclot® may be considered prior to nephrostomy placement in patients with significant parenchymal bleeding.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Shah HN, Hegde S, Shah JN, Mohile PD, Yuvaraja TB, Bansal MB (2006) A prospective, randomized trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of fibrin sealant in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 176:2488–2492CrossRefPubMed Shah HN, Hegde S, Shah JN, Mohile PD, Yuvaraja TB, Bansal MB (2006) A prospective, randomized trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of fibrin sealant in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 176:2488–2492CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Gupta NP, Mishra S, Suryawanshi M, Seth A, Kumar R (2008) Comparison of standard with tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 22:1441–1446CrossRefPubMed Gupta NP, Mishra S, Suryawanshi M, Seth A, Kumar R (2008) Comparison of standard with tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 22:1441–1446CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Borges CF, Fregonesi A, Silva DC, Sasse AD (2010) Systematic review and meta-analysis of nephrostomy placement versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 24:1739–1746 Borges CF, Fregonesi A, Silva DC, Sasse AD (2010) Systematic review and meta-analysis of nephrostomy placement versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 24:1739–1746
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Ni S, Qiyin C, Tao W et al (2011) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy is associated with less pain and shorter hospitalization compared with standard or small bore drainage: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Urology 77:1293–1298CrossRefPubMed Ni S, Qiyin C, Tao W et al (2011) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy is associated with less pain and shorter hospitalization compared with standard or small bore drainage: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Urology 77:1293–1298CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Nagele U, Schilling D, Anastasiadis AG et al (2006) Closing the tract of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy with gelatine matrix hemostatic sealant can replace nephrostomy tube placement. Urology 68:489–493CrossRefPubMed Nagele U, Schilling D, Anastasiadis AG et al (2006) Closing the tract of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy with gelatine matrix hemostatic sealant can replace nephrostomy tube placement. Urology 68:489–493CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Noller MW, Baughman SM, Morey AF, Auge BK (2004) Fibrin sealant enables tubeless percutaneous stone surgery. J Urol 172:166–1669CrossRefPubMed Noller MW, Baughman SM, Morey AF, Auge BK (2004) Fibrin sealant enables tubeless percutaneous stone surgery. J Urol 172:166–1669CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Yu C, Xu Z, Long W et al (2014) Hemostatic agents used for nephrostomy tract closure after tubeless PCNL: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 42:445–453CrossRefPubMed Yu C, Xu Z, Long W et al (2014) Hemostatic agents used for nephrostomy tract closure after tubeless PCNL: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 42:445–453CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Rigopoulos C, Kyriazis I, Kallidonis P et al (2013) Assessing the use of haemostatic sealants in tubeless percutaneous renal access and their effect on renal drainage and histology: an experimental porcine study. BJU Int 112:E114–E121CrossRefPubMed Rigopoulos C, Kyriazis I, Kallidonis P et al (2013) Assessing the use of haemostatic sealants in tubeless percutaneous renal access and their effect on renal drainage and histology: an experimental porcine study. BJU Int 112:E114–E121CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang J, Zhang C, Tan G, Yang B, Chen W, Tan D (2014) The use of adjunctive hemostatic agents in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 42:509–517CrossRefPubMed Wang J, Zhang C, Tan G, Yang B, Chen W, Tan D (2014) The use of adjunctive hemostatic agents in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 42:509–517CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Tiselius HG, Andersson A (2003) Stone burden in an average Swedish population of stone formers requiring active stone removal: how can the stone size be estimated in the clinical routine? Eur Urol 4:275–281CrossRef Tiselius HG, Andersson A (2003) Stone burden in an average Swedish population of stone formers requiring active stone removal: how can the stone size be estimated in the clinical routine? Eur Urol 4:275–281CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Matlaga BR, Hyams ES (2011) Stones: can the Guy’s stone score predict PNL outcomes? Nature Rev Urol 8:363–364CrossRef Matlaga BR, Hyams ES (2011) Stones: can the Guy’s stone score predict PNL outcomes? Nature Rev Urol 8:363–364CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhong Q, Zheng C, Mo J, Piao Y, Zhou Y, Jiang Q (2013) Total tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. J Endourol 27:420–426CrossRefPubMed Zhong Q, Zheng C, Mo J, Piao Y, Zhou Y, Jiang Q (2013) Total tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. J Endourol 27:420–426CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Choe CH, L’Esperance JO, Auge BK (2009) The use of adjunctive hemostatic agents for tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 23:1733–1738CrossRefPubMed Choe CH, L’Esperance JO, Auge BK (2009) The use of adjunctive hemostatic agents for tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 23:1733–1738CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Uribe CA, Eichel L, Khonsari S et al (2005) What happens to hemostatic agents in contact with urine? An in vitro study. J Endourol 19:312–317CrossRefPubMed Uribe CA, Eichel L, Khonsari S et al (2005) What happens to hemostatic agents in contact with urine? An in vitro study. J Endourol 19:312–317CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim IY, Eichel L, Edwards R et al (2007) Effects of commonly used hemostatic agents on the porcine collecting system. J Endourol 21:652–654CrossRefPubMed Kim IY, Eichel L, Edwards R et al (2007) Effects of commonly used hemostatic agents on the porcine collecting system. J Endourol 21:652–654CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Lipkin ME, Mancini JG, Simmons WN et al (2011) Pathologic evaluation of hemostatic agents in percutaneous nephrolithotomy tracts in a porcine model. J Endourol 25:1353–1357CrossRefPubMed Lipkin ME, Mancini JG, Simmons WN et al (2011) Pathologic evaluation of hemostatic agents in percutaneous nephrolithotomy tracts in a porcine model. J Endourol 25:1353–1357CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Kheirabadi BS, Mace JE, Terrazas IB et al (2010) Safety evaluation of new hemostatic agents, smectite granules, and kaolin-coated gauze in a vascular injury wound model in swine. J Trauma 68:269–278CrossRefPubMed Kheirabadi BS, Mace JE, Terrazas IB et al (2010) Safety evaluation of new hemostatic agents, smectite granules, and kaolin-coated gauze in a vascular injury wound model in swine. J Trauma 68:269–278CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy with non-absorbable hemostatic sealant (Quikclot®) versus nephrostomy tube placement: a propensity score-matched analysis
verfasst von
Kyo Chul Koo
Sang Un Park
Ho Sung Jang
Chang-Hee Hong
Publikationsdatum
01.11.2015
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Urolithiasis / Ausgabe 6/2015
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Elektronische ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0796-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2015

Urolithiasis 6/2015 Zur Ausgabe

Update Urologie

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