Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: keeping the bridge for one night.

Urological Research Pub Date : 2012-08-01 Epub Date: 2011-11-01 DOI:10.1007/s00240-011-0432-4
Ahmed R El-Nahas, Ahmed A Shokeir
{"title":"Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: keeping the bridge for one night.","authors":"Ahmed R El-Nahas,&nbsp;Ahmed A Shokeir","doi":"10.1007/s00240-011-0432-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study was conducted to compare nephrostomy-free percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with early nephrostomy tube removal (after 1 day). A prospective study started from January 2008 through December 2009 and included patients who underwent non-complicated PCNL through a single tract without intra-operative residual stones. Nephrostomy-free technique was performed during 2008 (nephrostomy-free group). During 2009, a nephrostomy tube was placed for 1 day (1-day nephrostomy group). Both groups were compared for post-operative events, dose of analgesia, hemoglobin deficit and hospital stay. The study included 55 patients (27 in nephrostomy-free group and 28 in 1-day nephrostomy group). There were no statistically significant differences between patients, renal and stone characteristics of both groups. Post-operative events were significantly more in nephrostomy-free group (26 vs. 14.3%, p = 0.039). They include hematuria in three (11.1%) of nephrostomy-free patients and one (3.6%) of 1-day nephrostomy patient, severe renal colic in four patients of nephrostomy-free group (14.8%), and temporary urinary leakage via the nephrostomy site in three patients of 1-day nephrostomy group (10.7%). Mean dose of post-operative analgesia, mean hemoglobin deficit and hospital days were comparable for both groups (p = 0.946, 0.541, 0.807, respectively). A second look PCNL was performed through the already present tract to retrieve residual stones in two patients with nephrostomy. In conclusion, 1-day nephrostomy technique after PCNL showed significantly better post-operative course. It was comparable to nephrostomy-free technique in analgesic requirements and hospital stay. The nephrostomy tube provided a bridge for second look nephroscopy.</p>","PeriodicalId":23412,"journal":{"name":"Urological Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00240-011-0432-4","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urological Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-011-0432-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2011/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

This study was conducted to compare nephrostomy-free percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with early nephrostomy tube removal (after 1 day). A prospective study started from January 2008 through December 2009 and included patients who underwent non-complicated PCNL through a single tract without intra-operative residual stones. Nephrostomy-free technique was performed during 2008 (nephrostomy-free group). During 2009, a nephrostomy tube was placed for 1 day (1-day nephrostomy group). Both groups were compared for post-operative events, dose of analgesia, hemoglobin deficit and hospital stay. The study included 55 patients (27 in nephrostomy-free group and 28 in 1-day nephrostomy group). There were no statistically significant differences between patients, renal and stone characteristics of both groups. Post-operative events were significantly more in nephrostomy-free group (26 vs. 14.3%, p = 0.039). They include hematuria in three (11.1%) of nephrostomy-free patients and one (3.6%) of 1-day nephrostomy patient, severe renal colic in four patients of nephrostomy-free group (14.8%), and temporary urinary leakage via the nephrostomy site in three patients of 1-day nephrostomy group (10.7%). Mean dose of post-operative analgesia, mean hemoglobin deficit and hospital days were comparable for both groups (p = 0.946, 0.541, 0.807, respectively). A second look PCNL was performed through the already present tract to retrieve residual stones in two patients with nephrostomy. In conclusion, 1-day nephrostomy technique after PCNL showed significantly better post-operative course. It was comparable to nephrostomy-free technique in analgesic requirements and hospital stay. The nephrostomy tube provided a bridge for second look nephroscopy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经皮肾镜取石术:留桥一晚。
本研究旨在比较无肾造口经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)与早期肾造口取管术(1天后)。一项前瞻性研究始于2008年1月至2009年12月,纳入了通过单路无术中残留结石的无并发症PCNL患者。2008年行无肾造口术(无肾造口组)。2009年,放置肾造瘘管1天(1天肾造瘘组)。比较两组患者术后事件、镇痛剂量、血红蛋白缺损及住院时间。本研究共纳入55例患者(无肾造口组27例,1天肾造口组28例)。两组患者肾脏及结石特征比较,差异均无统计学意义。无肾造瘘组术后事件发生率明显高于无肾造瘘组(26% vs. 14.3%, p = 0.039)。无肾造口组3例(11.1%)出现血尿,1天造口组1例(3.6%)出现严重肾绞痛,无肾造口组4例(14.8%)出现严重肾绞痛,1天造口组3例(10.7%)出现暂时性肾造口部位漏尿。两组患者术后镇痛的平均剂量、平均血红蛋白缺损和住院天数具有可比性(p分别为0.946、0.541、0.807)。在两例肾造口患者中,PCNL通过已经存在的泌尿道进行了第二次检查,以回收残留的结石。结论:PCNL术后1天肾造口术明显改善了术后病程。在镇痛需求和住院时间方面与无肾造口术相当。肾造口管为二次肾镜检查提供了桥梁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Urological Research
Urological Research 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊最新文献
A simple and rapid colorimetric method for determination of phytate in urine. Hyperoxaluric rats do not exhibit alterations in renal expression patterns of Slc26a1 (SAT1) mRNA or protein. Studies on the in vitro and in vivo antiurolithic activity of Holarrhena antidysenterica. Ureteroscopy-assisted retrograde nephrostomy (UARN) for an incomplete double ureter. Urgent shock wave lithotripsy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 570 patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1