A study of standard versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Our institutional experience

Authors

  • Rajkumar Ramakrishnan Associate Professor, Department of Urology, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7206-487X
  • Senthil Kumar Poovathai Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4062-3029
  • Rajasekar Sundaram Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4314-1589
  • Gopu Rakesh Vamsi Senior Resident, Department of Urology, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2629-2262
  • Gulakavarapu Sammohit Senior Resident, Department of Urology, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5002-0008
  • Shravankumar Savadatti Senior Resident, Department of Urology, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3126/ajms.v14i7.51053

Keywords:

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Internal stents

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is considered to be the standard procedure in patients with large renal calculus. The purpose of this study is to analyze the evidence-based literature regarding the “nephrostomy-free” or “tubeless” PCNL and to assess the safety, efficacy, possibility, and benefits of tubeless PCNL over standard PCNL.

Aims and Objectives: The aim of the study was to review and compare tubeless PCNL with standard PCNL.

Materials and Methods: It is a retrospective study done between August 2021 and December 2022. 100 cases of stone disease with stone size more than 2 cm who underwent PCNL in the Department of Urology, Govt hospital, Salem. Patients are divided into two groups (Group A and Group B) of 50 each depending on date of surgery.

Results: In our study, we compared tubeless PCNL versus standard PCNL in patients with stone disease. Tubeless PCNL was performed with success in patients of age 13 years–65 years. 36 were female patients, whereas 64 were male patients in this study. All the results were presented in a tabulated form in our study.

Conclusion: Tubeless PCNL is a safe and effective technique and is associated with decreased pain, low analgesic requirement, less operating time, and faster recovery. However, it has its own limitation that precludes secondary procedure for the treatment, removal of internal stent, dysuria, and need to visit hospital for subsequent removal of internal stent.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract
63
PDF
111

Downloads

Published

2023-07-01

How to Cite

Rajkumar Ramakrishnan, Senthil Kumar Poovathai, Rajasekar Sundaram, Gopu Rakesh Vamsi, Gulakavarapu Sammohit, & Shravankumar Savadatti. (2023). A study of standard versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Our institutional experience. Asian Journal of Medical Sciences, 14(7), 200–203. https://doi.org/10.3126/ajms.v14i7.51053

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 7 (2023)

Section

Original Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Asian Journal of Medical Sciences

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The journal holds copyright and publishes the work under a Creative Commons CC-BY-NC license that permits use, distribution and reprduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. The journal should be recognised as the original publisher of this work.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).