Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Relevant randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials studies were identified from electronic database (Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline and EMBASE et al.). The retrieval time ended in August 2010. The quality of the included trials was assessed and the data were extracted independently by two reviewers. We divided the participants who received standard PCNL into two subgroups: small tube (4–10 F) group and big tube (14–24 F) group to reduce heterogeneity and bias. Efficacy (hospital stay time, operative time, stone-free rate) and safety (postoperative pain and analgesia requirement, postoperative fever, blood transfusion, urine leakage) were explored by using review manager v5.0. Fourteen randomized controlled trials comprising 776 subjects met the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences in hospital stay, postoperative analgesic requirement and urine leakage between tubeless and standard PCNL. In operative time, significant difference was found between tubeless and big tube group. No statistically significant differences were found in stone-free rate, postoperative fever, and blood transfusion between tubeless and standard PCNL. In conclusion, Tubeless PCNL was an effective and safe procedure for treatment of renal stones in selected patients, with shorter hospital stay, less analgesic requirement, lower urine leakage and without increased complications. Patients can receive great benefit from tubeless PCNL and it will become more palatable to patients as well as more cost-effective than standard PCNL in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

PCNL:

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy

VAS:

Visual analog scale

CI:

Confidence interval

SD:

Standard deviation

OR:

Odds ratio

MD:

Mean difference

References

  1. Fernstrom I, Johannson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy: A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10:257–259

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Winfield HN, Weyman P, Clayman RV (1986) Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: complications of premature nephrostomy tube removal. J Urol 136:77–79

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jackman SV, Docimo SG, Cadeddu JA et al (1998) The “miniperc” technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 16:371–374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bellman GC, Davdoff R, Candela J, Gerspach J, Kurtz S, Stout L (1997) Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 157:1578–1582

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Shah HN, Sodha HS, Khandkar AA et al (2008) A randomized trial evaluating type of nephrostomy drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: small bore v tubeless. J Endourol 22:1433–1439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled Clin Trials 17:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  7. Higgins JPT, Green S (2009) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.0.2 updated September 2009. The Cochrane Collaboration

  8. 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 172:565–567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Feng MI, Tamaddon K, Mikhail A, Kaptein JS, Bellman GC (2001) Prospective randomized study of various techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 58:345–350

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Marcovich R, Jacobson AI, Singh J, Shah D, El-Hakim A, Lee BR, Smith AD (2004) No panacea for drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 18:743–747

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tefekli A, Altunrende F, Tepeler K, Tas A, Aydin S, Muslumanoglu AY (2006) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients: a prospective randomized comparison. Int Urol Nephrol 39:57–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Agrawal MS, Agrawal M, Gupta A et al (2008) A randomized comparison of tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 22:439–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Choi M, Brusky J, Weaver J et al (2006) Randomized trial comparing modified tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy with tailed stent with percutaneous nephrostomy with small bore tube. J Endourol 20:766–770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sofikerim M, Demirci D, Huri E et al (2007) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Safe even in supracostal access. J Endourol 21:967–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Singh I, Singh A, Mittal G (2008) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it really less morbid? J Endourol 22:427–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kara C, Resorlu B, Bayindir M, Unsal A (2010) A randomized comparison of totally tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients. Urology 76:289–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mishra S, Sabnis RB, Kurien A et al (2010) Questioning the wisdom of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective randomized controlled study of early tube removal vs tubeless PCNL. BJU Int 106:1045–1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 41:541–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Weiland D, Pedro RN, Anderson JK, Best SL, Lee C, Hendlin K, Kim J, Monga M (2007) Randomized prospective evaluation of nephrostomy tube configuration: impact on postoperative pain. Int Braz J Urol 33:313–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Falahatkar S, Khosropanah I, Roshani A, Niroumand H, Nikpour S (2008) Safety and efficacy of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Acta Medica Iranica 46:383–385

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jou YC, Cheng MC, Sheen JH, Lin CT, Chen PC (2004) Cauterization of access tract for nephrostomy tube-free percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 18:547–549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Al-Ba’adani TH, Al-Kohlany KM, Al-Adimi A, Al-Towaity M, Al-Baadani T, Alwan M, Al-Hussieni M, Al-Germozi S, Al-Masani M, Al-Badwy K, El-Nono IH (2008) Tubeless percutaneous neprolithotomy: the new gold standard, Int Urol Nephrol 40:603–608

  23. Lee DI, Uribe C, Eichel L, Khonsari S, Basillote J, Park HK, Li CC, McDougall EM, Clayman RV (2004) Sealing percutaneous nephrolithotomy tracts with gelatin matrix hemostatic sealant: initial clinical use. J Urol 171:575–578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. DavidoV R, Bellman GC (1997) Influence of technique of percutaneous tract creation on incidence of renal hemorrhage. J Urol 157:1229–1231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Salem HK, Morsi HA, Omran A, Daw MA (2007) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children. J Pediatr Urol 3:235–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yang RM, Bellman GC (2004) Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery in obese patients. Urology 63:1036–1041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lojanapiwat B (2010) Does previous open nephrolithotomy affect the efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urol Int 85:42–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Beiko D, Lee L (2010) Outpatient tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the initial case series. Can Urol Assoc J 4:E86–E90

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the staff and colleagues in the Chinese Cochrane Centre for their help and support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Guoxue Xiang #37, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China

    Haichao Yuan, Shuo Zheng, Liangren Liu, Ping Han, Jia Wang & Qiang Wei

Authors
  1. Haichao Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shuo Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liangren Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ping Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jia Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Qiang Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qiang Wei.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yuan, H., Zheng, S., Liu, L. et al. The efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Res 39, 401–410 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0355-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0355-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation