The Journal of Urology
Volume 184, Issue 4 , Pages 1261-1266, October 2010

Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy—The New Standard of Care?

  • D.E. Zilberman

      Affiliations

    • Nothing to disclose.
    • Comprehensive Kidney Stone Center, Division of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
  • ,
  • M.E. Lipkin

      Affiliations

    • Nothing to disclose.
    • Comprehensive Kidney Stone Center, Division of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
  • ,
  • J.J. de la Rosette

      Affiliations

    • Financial interest and/or other relationship with BSC, Galil and AMS.
    • Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • M.N. Ferrandino

      Affiliations

    • Nothing to disclose.
    • Comprehensive Kidney Stone Center, Division of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
  • ,
  • C. Mamoulakis

      Affiliations

    • Nothing to disclose.
    • Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • M.P. Laguna

      Affiliations

    • Nothing to disclose.
    • Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • G.M. Preminger

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence: Division of Urologic Surgery, DUMC Box 3167, Room 1572D White Zone, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710 (telephone: 919-681-5506; FAX: 919-681-5507)
    • Financial interest and/or other relationship with Boston Scientific.
    • Comprehensive Kidney Stone Center, Division of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

Received 9 March 2010 published online 18 August 2010.

Purpose

Traditionally the placement of a nephrostomy tube at the conclusion of percutaneous nephrolithotomy is considered the standard of care. However, the need for nephrostomy tube placement has been questioned by numerous authors. We evaluated the literature regarding tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and determined potential candidates for tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and whether this procedure can be considered the new standard of care for complex stone removal.

Materials and Methods

A MEDLINE® search was conducted between May 1997 and January 2010 to detect studies reporting tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. “Nephrolithiasis,” “percutaneous nephrolithotomy,” “tubeless” and “lithotripsy” were used as medical subject headings (MeSH) key words. Additional citations were identified by reviewing the reference lists of the included articles. All relevant articles were reviewed for indications, outcomes and complications.

Results

The data obtained from 50 reports document comparable complication rates between tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy demonstrated advantages such as less pain, less debilitation, less costs and a shorter hospital stay. Mean stone-free rates for tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy were as high as 89%.

Conclusions

Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy appears to be safe and efficacious in uneventful procedures, in children, in obese patients, in simultaneous bilateral procedures, in supracostal access and in renal units with coexisting anatomical anomalies. Nephrostomy tube placement should still be considered in certain cases such as those with more than 2 nephrostomy access tracts, those necessitating a second look and those with intraoperative complications such as significant bleeding or collecting system perforation.

Key Words: nephrostomy, percutaneous, lithotripsy, nephrolithiasis, drainage

Abbreviations and Acronyms: BMI, body mass index, NT, nephrostomy tube, PNL, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, UC, ureteral catheter, US, ureteral stent

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Editor's Note: This article is the first of 5 published in this issue for which category 1 CME credits can be earned. Instructions for obtaining credits are given with the questions on pages 1580 and 1581.

PII: S0022-5347(10)03792-4

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.020

The Journal of Urology
Volume 184, Issue 4 , Pages 1261-1266, October 2010