Exit strategies following percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): A comparison of surgical outcomes in the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) PCNL Global Study

World Journal of Urology

Volumn 31, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 1239-1244

  Cormio, Luigi ^a   Gonzalez, Gaspar Ibarlucea ^b   Tolley, David ^c   Sofer, Mario ^d   Muslumanoglu, Ahmet ^e   Klingler, Hans Christoph ^f   Stolzenburg, Jens Uwe ^g   de la Rosette, Jean ^h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FOGGIA   (Italy)

^b HOSPITAL DE GALDAKAO   (Spain)

^c WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^e HASEKI EDUCATION AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL   (Turkey)

^f MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^g UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^h ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Nephrostomy tube; PCNL; Stent; Tubeless; Urinary stones

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EQUIPMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEPHROLITHIASIS; OPERATION DURATION; OPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROSTOMY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; STENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; BLOOD LOSS, SURGICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; KIDNEY CALCULI; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEPHROSTOMY, PERCUTANEOUS; OPERATIVE TIME; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STENTS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84884821543     PISSN: 07244983     EISSN: 14338726     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-012-0898-x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A et al (2010) EAU guidelines on urolithiasis, pp 1-106. http://www. uroweb. org/gls/pdf/18_Urolithiasis. pdf.
2. Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J et al (1997) Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 157: 1578. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-5347(01)64799-2.
3. Borges CF, Fregonesi A, Silva DC et al (2010) Systematic review and meta-analysis of nephrostomy placement versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithtotomy. J Endourol 24: 1739. doi: 10. 1089/end. 2010. 0231.
4. Ni S, Qiyin C, Tao W et al (2100) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy is associated with less pain and shorter hospitalization compared with standard or small bore drainage: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Urology 77: 1293. doi: 10. 1016/j. urology. 2010. 10. 023.
5. Gonen M, Ozturk B, Ozkardes H (2009) Double-j stenting compared with one night externalized ureteral catheter placement in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 23: 27. doi: 10. 1089/end. 2008. 0382.
6. Istanbulluoglu MO, Ozturk B, Gonen M et al (2009) Effectiveness of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients: a prospective randomized study. Int Urol Nephrol 41: 541. doi: 10. 1007/s11255-008-9517-6.
7. Mishra S, Sabnis RB, An Kurien et al (2010) Questioning the wisdom of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a prospective randomized controlled study of early tube removal vs. tubeless PCNL. BJU Int 106: 1045. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1464-410X. 2010. 09223. x.
8. Li R, Louie MK, Lee HJ et al (2011) Prospective randomized trial of three different methods of nephrostomy tract closure after percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. BJU Int 107: 1660. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1464-410X. 2010. 09676. x.
9. de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M et al (2011) The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 25: 11. doi: 10. 1089/end. 2010. 0424.
10. Labate G, Modi P, Timoney A et al (2011) The percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: classification of complications. J Endourol 25: 1275. doi: 10. 1089/end. 2011. 0067.
11. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 204: 205. doi: 10. 1097/01. sla. 0000133083. 54934. ae.
12. Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K et al (2008) Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified Clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 153: 184. doi: 10. 1016/j. eururo. 2007. 06. 049.
13. de la Rosette J, Gravas S (2010) Guidelines for CROES publications. J Endurol 24: 167-169. doi: 10. 1089/end. 2010. 1503.
14. Cormio L, Perrone A, Di Fino G et al (2012). TachoSil®-sealed tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy to reduce urine leakage and bleeding: outcome from a randomized controlled study. J Urol. doi: 10. 1016/j. juro. 2012. 03. 011.
15. Malcolm JB, Derweesh IH, Brightbill EK et al (2008) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy for complex renal stone disease: single center experience. Can J Urol 15: 4072.
16. Zilberman DE, Lipkin ME, de la Rosette JJ et al (2010) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy-the new standard of care? J Urol 184: 1261. doi: 10. 1016/j. juro. 2010. 06. 020.
17. Etemadian M, Soleimani MJ, Haghighi R et al (2011) Does bleeding during percutaneous nephrolithotomy necessitate keeping the nephrostomy tube? A randomized controlled clinical trial. Urol J 8: 21.
18. Istanbulluoglu MO, Cicek T, Ozturk B et al (2010) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: nephrostomy or tubeless or totally tubeless? Urology 75: 1043. doi: 10. 1016/j. urology. 2009. 06. 104.
19. Aghamir SM, Mohammadi A, Mosavibahar SH et al (2008) Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in renal anomalies. J Endourol 22: 2131. doi: 10. 1089/end. 2008. 0015.
20. Kara C, Resorlu B, Bayindir M et al (2010) A randomized comparison of totally tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients. Urology 76: 289. doi: 10. 1016/j. urology. 2009. 11. 077.