Supracostal access: Does it affect tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy efficacy and safety?

Introduction: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in selected patients has been found to be safe and can reduce postoperative discomfort without increasing complications. The challenges of tubeless PCNL via supracostal access are inadequate drainage and postoperative bleeding, conditions th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jun-Ou J., Lojanapiwat B.
Format: Journal
Published: 2017
Online Access:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=77953936588&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/43332
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Chiang Mai University
id th-cmuir.6653943832-43332
record_format dspace
spelling th-cmuir.6653943832-433322017-09-28T06:54:35Z Supracostal access: Does it affect tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy efficacy and safety? Jun-Ou J. Lojanapiwat B. Introduction: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in selected patients has been found to be safe and can reduce postoperative discomfort without increasing complications. The challenges of tubeless PCNL via supracostal access are inadequate drainage and postoperative bleeding, conditions that may increase pulmonary complications. We compare the efficacy and safety of the tubeless supracostal versus the standard supracostal PCNL. Materials and Methods: Supracostal PCNL with one percutaneous renal access, no significant bleeding, extravasation and residual stone was performed in 95 patients. Of these, 43 were tubeless PCNL (Group-I) and 52 were PCNL with standard routine postoperative nephrostomy tube (Group-II). In group-I, PCNL was done by the standard supracostal technique with the placement of a postoperative external ureteral catheter for 48 hours. The operative time, success rate, hospital stay and ensuing complications were compared between group-I and group-II. Results: Patients in the tubeless PCNL group (Group-I) were 90.7% stone -free while those with standard routine postoperative nephrostomy tube(Group-II) were 84.6% stone -free. Additionally, stone fragments of less than 4 mm in diameter were found in 9.3% of patients in group-I and 25.4% in group-II. The success rate, hematocrit change and complication were not significantly different between both groups. The analgesic requirement, operative time and hospital stay were all significantly less in the tubeless supracostal group (Group-I). None of group I and only one patient of group II needed intercostal drainage. Conclusion: Tubeless supracostal percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients is effective with acceptable complications. This technique offers the advantage of lower analgesic requirement, shorter operative time and hospital stay. The pulmonary complication is the same as the standard supracostal percutaneous nephrolithotomy. 2017-09-28T06:54:35Z 2017-09-28T06:54:35Z 2010-03-01 Journal 16775538 2-s2.0-77953936588 10.1590/S1677-55382010000200006 https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=77953936588&origin=inward http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/43332
institution Chiang Mai University
building Chiang Mai University Library
country Thailand
collection CMU Intellectual Repository
description Introduction: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in selected patients has been found to be safe and can reduce postoperative discomfort without increasing complications. The challenges of tubeless PCNL via supracostal access are inadequate drainage and postoperative bleeding, conditions that may increase pulmonary complications. We compare the efficacy and safety of the tubeless supracostal versus the standard supracostal PCNL. Materials and Methods: Supracostal PCNL with one percutaneous renal access, no significant bleeding, extravasation and residual stone was performed in 95 patients. Of these, 43 were tubeless PCNL (Group-I) and 52 were PCNL with standard routine postoperative nephrostomy tube (Group-II). In group-I, PCNL was done by the standard supracostal technique with the placement of a postoperative external ureteral catheter for 48 hours. The operative time, success rate, hospital stay and ensuing complications were compared between group-I and group-II. Results: Patients in the tubeless PCNL group (Group-I) were 90.7% stone -free while those with standard routine postoperative nephrostomy tube(Group-II) were 84.6% stone -free. Additionally, stone fragments of less than 4 mm in diameter were found in 9.3% of patients in group-I and 25.4% in group-II. The success rate, hematocrit change and complication were not significantly different between both groups. The analgesic requirement, operative time and hospital stay were all significantly less in the tubeless supracostal group (Group-I). None of group I and only one patient of group II needed intercostal drainage. Conclusion: Tubeless supracostal percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients is effective with acceptable complications. This technique offers the advantage of lower analgesic requirement, shorter operative time and hospital stay. The pulmonary complication is the same as the standard supracostal percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
format Journal
author Jun-Ou J.
Lojanapiwat B.
spellingShingle Jun-Ou J.
Lojanapiwat B.
Supracostal access: Does it affect tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy efficacy and safety?
author_facet Jun-Ou J.
Lojanapiwat B.
author_sort Jun-Ou J.
title Supracostal access: Does it affect tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy efficacy and safety?
title_short Supracostal access: Does it affect tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy efficacy and safety?
title_full Supracostal access: Does it affect tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy efficacy and safety?
title_fullStr Supracostal access: Does it affect tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy efficacy and safety?
title_full_unstemmed Supracostal access: Does it affect tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy efficacy and safety?
title_sort supracostal access: does it affect tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy efficacy and safety?
publishDate 2017
url https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=77953936588&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/43332
_version_ 1681422357936209920