A Comparison of Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Does Tubeless Realy Superior? A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study
Aim: We aimed to compare patient groups who underwent either a standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) or tubeless PNL for safety, effectiveness and patient comfort. Material and Methods: 78 patients were included in the study. Patients who underwent the standard PNL (n=38) or tubeless PNL (n=4...
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Ali İhsan Taşçı
2019-10-01
|
Series: | Yeni Üroloji Dergisi |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/yud/issue/47273/508649 |
id |
doaj-6b3995fcc8484185b8473aa5c0db90aa |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-6b3995fcc8484185b8473aa5c0db90aa2020-11-25T03:20:10ZengAli İhsan TaşçıYeni Üroloji Dergisi1305-24892687-19552019-10-0114316016510.33719/yud.508649A Comparison of Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Does Tubeless Realy Superior? A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind StudyHuseyin KOCAKGOL0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7683-3282Senol ADANUR1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2508-199XAli Haydar YİLMAZ2https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5797-0655Fatih OZKAYA3https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7776-4231İbrahim KARABULUT4https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6766-0191Ozkan POLAT5https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9961-662XKanuni Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Trabzon, TurkeyDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Ataturk University, Erzurum, TurkeyBilecik State Hospital, Department of Urology, Bilecik, TurkeyAtaturk University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Urology,TurkeyHealth Sciences University, Erzurum Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, TurkeyAtaturk University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Urology,TurkeyAim: We aimed to compare patient groups who underwent either a standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) or tubeless PNL for safety, effectiveness and patient comfort. Material and Methods: 78 patients were included in the study. Patients who underwent the standard PNL (n=38) or tubeless PNL (n=40) were randomized into Groups 1 and 2, respectively. This study was designed as a prospective, randomized, double-blind investigation. Patients who had active bleeding at the end of the operation and those with multiple access tracts were excluded from the study. To evaluate postoperative pain and complications, a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a modified Clavien classification were used, respectively. Results: A statistically significant difference was not found between the two patient groups for demographic data (age and gender), or for size, laterality, and intrarenal location of the stone(s) (p>0.05). Perioperative data, including operative and fluoroscopy times and stone‑free rates, perioperative changes in creatinine and haemoglobin values, blood transfusion, VAS 2 to 3 pain scores, analgesic requirements, fever and complications requiring additional surgical treatment were not statistically different between groups (p>0.05). A VAS 1 pain score and hospital stays were significantly decreased in the tubeless PNL group (p=0.003). Conclusions: Tubeless PNL surgery is an effective and safe endourological procedure that can be performed by experienced surgeons. Its advantages over standard PNL include less pain during the early postoperative period, shorter hospital stays but the rates of complications are not significantly lower.https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/yud/issue/47273/508649renal stonespercutaneous nephrolithotomystandard pnltubeless pnlpainhospitalization time |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Huseyin KOCAKGOL Senol ADANUR Ali Haydar YİLMAZ Fatih OZKAYA İbrahim KARABULUT Ozkan POLAT |
spellingShingle |
Huseyin KOCAKGOL Senol ADANUR Ali Haydar YİLMAZ Fatih OZKAYA İbrahim KARABULUT Ozkan POLAT A Comparison of Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Does Tubeless Realy Superior? A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study Yeni Üroloji Dergisi renal stones percutaneous nephrolithotomy standard pnl tubeless pnl pain hospitalization time |
author_facet |
Huseyin KOCAKGOL Senol ADANUR Ali Haydar YİLMAZ Fatih OZKAYA İbrahim KARABULUT Ozkan POLAT |
author_sort |
Huseyin KOCAKGOL |
title |
A Comparison of Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Does Tubeless Realy Superior? A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study |
title_short |
A Comparison of Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Does Tubeless Realy Superior? A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study |
title_full |
A Comparison of Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Does Tubeless Realy Superior? A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study |
title_fullStr |
A Comparison of Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Does Tubeless Realy Superior? A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study |
title_full_unstemmed |
A Comparison of Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Does Tubeless Realy Superior? A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study |
title_sort |
comparison of standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy and tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: does tubeless realy superior? a prospective randomized double-blind study |
publisher |
Ali İhsan Taşçı |
series |
Yeni Üroloji Dergisi |
issn |
1305-2489 2687-1955 |
publishDate |
2019-10-01 |
description |
Aim: We aimed to compare patient groups who underwent either a standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) or tubeless PNL for safety, effectiveness and patient comfort.
Material and Methods: 78 patients were included in the study. Patients who underwent the standard PNL (n=38) or tubeless PNL (n=40) were randomized into Groups 1 and 2, respectively. This study was designed as a prospective, randomized, double-blind investigation. Patients who had active bleeding at the end of the operation and those with multiple access tracts were excluded from the study. To evaluate postoperative pain and complications, a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a modified Clavien classification were used, respectively.
Results: A statistically significant difference was not found between the two patient groups for demographic data (age and gender), or for size, laterality, and intrarenal location of the stone(s) (p>0.05). Perioperative data, including operative and fluoroscopy times and stone‑free rates, perioperative changes in creatinine and haemoglobin values, blood transfusion, VAS 2 to 3 pain scores, analgesic requirements, fever and complications requiring additional surgical treatment were not statistically different between groups (p>0.05). A VAS 1 pain score and hospital stays were significantly decreased in the tubeless PNL group (p=0.003).
Conclusions: Tubeless PNL surgery is an effective and safe endourological procedure that can be performed by experienced surgeons. Its advantages over standard PNL include less pain during the early postoperative period, shorter hospital stays but the rates of complications are not significantly lower. |
topic |
renal stones percutaneous nephrolithotomy standard pnl tubeless pnl pain hospitalization time |
url |
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/yud/issue/47273/508649 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT huseyinkocakgol acomparisonofstandardpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandtubelesspercutaneousnephrolithotomydoestubelessrealysuperioraprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT senoladanur acomparisonofstandardpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandtubelesspercutaneousnephrolithotomydoestubelessrealysuperioraprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT alihaydaryilmaz acomparisonofstandardpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandtubelesspercutaneousnephrolithotomydoestubelessrealysuperioraprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT fatihozkaya acomparisonofstandardpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandtubelesspercutaneousnephrolithotomydoestubelessrealysuperioraprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT ibrahimkarabulut acomparisonofstandardpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandtubelesspercutaneousnephrolithotomydoestubelessrealysuperioraprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT ozkanpolat acomparisonofstandardpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandtubelesspercutaneousnephrolithotomydoestubelessrealysuperioraprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT huseyinkocakgol comparisonofstandardpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandtubelesspercutaneousnephrolithotomydoestubelessrealysuperioraprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT senoladanur comparisonofstandardpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandtubelesspercutaneousnephrolithotomydoestubelessrealysuperioraprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT alihaydaryilmaz comparisonofstandardpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandtubelesspercutaneousnephrolithotomydoestubelessrealysuperioraprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT fatihozkaya comparisonofstandardpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandtubelesspercutaneousnephrolithotomydoestubelessrealysuperioraprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT ibrahimkarabulut comparisonofstandardpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandtubelesspercutaneousnephrolithotomydoestubelessrealysuperioraprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy AT ozkanpolat comparisonofstandardpercutaneousnephrolithotomyandtubelesspercutaneousnephrolithotomydoestubelessrealysuperioraprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy |
_version_ |
1724619092802928640 |