Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Moosanejad,N.
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Firouzian,A., Hashemi,S.A., Bahari,M., Fazli,M.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2016000400704
Resumo: This study aimed to compare the totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy techniques regarding their rates of success and complications in patients with kidney stones. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Forty-four patients (24 men; mean age: 50.40±2.02 years) received totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL; no nephrostomy catheter or ureteral catheter after PCNL) and 40 patients (18 men; mean age: 49.95±13.38 years) underwent standard PCNL (a nephrostomy catheter and ureteral catheter were used after PCNL). All surgeries were performed by one surgeon. Postoperative changes in hemoglobin, the blood transfusion rate, changes in creatinine levels, operation time, analgesic need, hospitalization time, and complication rate were compared between the groups. No significant differences were observed in age, gender, stone size, and surgery side between the groups (P<0.05). The operation time was significantly lower in the totally tubeless PCNL group than in the standard PCNL group (P=0.005). Pethidine requirements were significantly higher in the standard PCNL group than the totally tubeless PCNL group (P=0.007). Hospitalization time was significantly higher in the standard PCNL group than in the totally tubeless PCNL group (P<0.0001). The complication rate was 15% in the standard PCNL group and 9.1% in the totally tubeless PCNL group (P=0.73). The totally tubeless PCNL technique is safe and effective, even for patients with staghorn stones. This technique is associated with decreased pain, analgesic needs, and operative and hospitalization time. We believe that a normal peristaltic ureter is the best drainage tube.
id ABDC-1_7e06bd6db359ecd2be54ed5e783e47a1
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0100-879X2016000400704
network_acronym_str ABDC-1
network_name_str Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
repository_id_str
spelling Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trialTotally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomyStandard percutaneous nephrolithotomyComplicationsThis study aimed to compare the totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy techniques regarding their rates of success and complications in patients with kidney stones. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Forty-four patients (24 men; mean age: 50.40±2.02 years) received totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL; no nephrostomy catheter or ureteral catheter after PCNL) and 40 patients (18 men; mean age: 49.95±13.38 years) underwent standard PCNL (a nephrostomy catheter and ureteral catheter were used after PCNL). All surgeries were performed by one surgeon. Postoperative changes in hemoglobin, the blood transfusion rate, changes in creatinine levels, operation time, analgesic need, hospitalization time, and complication rate were compared between the groups. No significant differences were observed in age, gender, stone size, and surgery side between the groups (P<0.05). The operation time was significantly lower in the totally tubeless PCNL group than in the standard PCNL group (P=0.005). Pethidine requirements were significantly higher in the standard PCNL group than the totally tubeless PCNL group (P=0.007). Hospitalization time was significantly higher in the standard PCNL group than in the totally tubeless PCNL group (P<0.0001). The complication rate was 15% in the standard PCNL group and 9.1% in the totally tubeless PCNL group (P=0.73). The totally tubeless PCNL technique is safe and effective, even for patients with staghorn stones. This technique is associated with decreased pain, analgesic needs, and operative and hospitalization time. We believe that a normal peristaltic ureter is the best drainage tube.Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica2016-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2016000400704Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research v.49 n.4 2016reponame:Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Researchinstname:Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)instacron:ABDC10.1590/1414-431X20154878info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMoosanejad,N.Firouzian,A.Hashemi,S.A.Bahari,M.Fazli,M.eng2016-03-14T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0100-879X2016000400704Revistahttps://www.bjournal.org/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpbjournal@terra.com.br||bjournal@terra.com.br1414-431X0100-879Xopendoar:2016-03-14T00:00Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research - Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial
title Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial
spellingShingle Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial
Moosanejad,N.
Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Complications
title_short Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial
title_full Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial
title_fullStr Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial
title_sort Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial
author Moosanejad,N.
author_facet Moosanejad,N.
Firouzian,A.
Hashemi,S.A.
Bahari,M.
Fazli,M.
author_role author
author2 Firouzian,A.
Hashemi,S.A.
Bahari,M.
Fazli,M.
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Moosanejad,N.
Firouzian,A.
Hashemi,S.A.
Bahari,M.
Fazli,M.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Complications
topic Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Complications
description This study aimed to compare the totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy techniques regarding their rates of success and complications in patients with kidney stones. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Forty-four patients (24 men; mean age: 50.40±2.02 years) received totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL; no nephrostomy catheter or ureteral catheter after PCNL) and 40 patients (18 men; mean age: 49.95±13.38 years) underwent standard PCNL (a nephrostomy catheter and ureteral catheter were used after PCNL). All surgeries were performed by one surgeon. Postoperative changes in hemoglobin, the blood transfusion rate, changes in creatinine levels, operation time, analgesic need, hospitalization time, and complication rate were compared between the groups. No significant differences were observed in age, gender, stone size, and surgery side between the groups (P<0.05). The operation time was significantly lower in the totally tubeless PCNL group than in the standard PCNL group (P=0.005). Pethidine requirements were significantly higher in the standard PCNL group than the totally tubeless PCNL group (P=0.007). Hospitalization time was significantly higher in the standard PCNL group than in the totally tubeless PCNL group (P<0.0001). The complication rate was 15% in the standard PCNL group and 9.1% in the totally tubeless PCNL group (P=0.73). The totally tubeless PCNL technique is safe and effective, even for patients with staghorn stones. This technique is associated with decreased pain, analgesic needs, and operative and hospitalization time. We believe that a normal peristaltic ureter is the best drainage tube.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2016000400704
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2016000400704
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1414-431X20154878
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research v.49 n.4 2016
reponame:Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
instname:Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)
instacron:ABDC
instname_str Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)
instacron_str ABDC
institution ABDC
reponame_str Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
collection Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research - Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica (ABDC)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv bjournal@terra.com.br||bjournal@terra.com.br
_version_ 1754302944963985408