Comparison of tubeless drainage and nephrostomy tube as a drainage method after percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedure: A prospective study

Authors

  • Prakhar Chaudhary Grant Medical College and J.J. group of hospitals, Mumbai, India
  • Amol Kamble Grant Medical College and J.J. group of hospitals, Mumbai, India
  • Ojas Potdar Grant Medical College and J.J. group of hospitals, Mumbai, India
  • Shashank Sharma Grant Medical College and J.J. group of hospitals, Mumbai, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52786/isu.a.119

Keywords:

Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Nephrostomy tube, Day care surgery

Abstract

Objective: The standard procedure of PCNL involves insertion of a nephrostomy tube for drainage. The nephrostomy tube also serves as a medium to tamponade bleeding, and in cases where any remnant calculus requires re-exploration, the nephrostomy tube has been proved to be beneficial in providing access. However, presence of a tube may hamper PCNL in cases of day surgery. Tubeless PCNL could be the ideal approach in selecting which patients might be suitable for same day discharge. The objective of this study is to re-explore each drainage technique following PCNL and to compare the safety of these drainage procedures with a clear-cut clinical parameter imposed.

Materials and Methods: Inclusion Criteria: people aged 18 years and above, patients of either gender, all cases of renal calculi who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Exclusion Criteria: patients who needed more than 2 percutaneous tracts, patients with a solitary kidney or with bilateral renal calculi or with staghorn calculi or patients who had a residual stone after the procedure, patients having congenital renal anomalies, for example horse shoe kidney, mal rotated kidney, duplex moiety, ectopic kidney, patients with pelvis injury and extravasation during surgery. Total sample size was calculated to be 140 (70 in each group). Post operatively, patients in the two groups will be assessed on the following parameters: postoperative pain, analgesic requirement, complications, duration of hospital stay, return to normal activity and mean Hb decrease.

Results: Tubeless PCNL was significantly associated with shorter operative time, shorter hospital stay, faster time to return to normal activity, lower postoperative pain score, lower postoperative analgesia requirements, and lower urine leakage. There were no significant differences in postoperative haemoglobin reduction, stone-free rate, postoperative fever rate, or rate of blood transfusion.

Conclusion: Conclusions made from the outcomes of this study were that in com- parison to standard PCNL, use of the tubeless PCNL conferred statistically significant advantages in terms of post-operative pain, morbidity, length of hospital stay and period of convalescence. As tubeless PCNL decreased length patient hospital stay and analgesic requirement this procedure is more efficacious for day care surgery.

Author Biographies

Amol Kamble, Grant Medical College and J.J. group of hospitals, Mumbai, India

Assistant Professor, Department of Urology

Shashank Sharma, Grant Medical College and J.J. group of hospitals, Mumbai, India

Assistant Professor, Department of Urology

References

Preminger GM, Tiselius H-G, Assimos DG, Alken P, Buck C, Gallucci M, et al. 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 2007;178: 2418-34.

Taneja SS. Urologic Clinics of North America. Multidisciplinary management of urinary stone disease. Foreword. Urol Clin North Am 2013;40:xi.

Wang CJ, Chang CH, Huang SW. Simultaneous bilateral tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy of staghorn stones: a prospective randomized controlled study. Urol Res 2011;39:289-94.

Mouracade P, Spie R, Lang H, Jacqmin D, Saussine C. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: What about replacing the double-J Stent with a ureteral catheter? J Endourol 2008;22:273-6.

Agrawal M, Agrawal M. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Indian J Urol 2010;26:16-24.

Tefekli A, Altunrende F, Tepeler K, Tas A, Aydin S, Muslumanoglu AY. Tubeless percutaneous nephroli- thotomy in selected patients: a prospective random- ized comparison. Int Urol Nephrol 2007;39:57-63.

Gupta V, Sadasukhi TC, Sharma KK, Yadav RG, Mathur R. Tubeless and stentless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. BJU Int 2005;95:905-6.

Tirtayasa PMW, Yuri P, Birowo P, Rasyid N. Safety of tubeless or totally tubeless drainage and nephrostomy tube as a drainage following percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A comprehensive review. Asian J Surg 2017;40:419-23.

Moosanejad N, Firouzian A, Hashemi SA, Bahari M, Fazli M. Comparison of totally tubeless percuta- neous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial. Braz J Med Biol Res 2016;49:e4878.

Tirtayasa PMW, Yuri P, Birowo P, Rasyid N. Safety of tubeless or totally tubeless drainage and nephrostomy tube as a drainage following percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A comprehensive review. Asian J Surg 2017;40:419-23.

Xun Y, Wang Q, Hu H, Lu Y, Zhang J, Qin B, et al. Tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update meta-analysis. BMC Urol 2017;17:102.

Gauhar V, Traxer O, García Rojo E, Scarcella S, Pavia MP, Chan VWS, et al. Complications and outcomes of tubeless versus nephrostomy tube in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Urolithiasis 2022;50:511-22.

Hill H, Talamini S, Vetter J, Nottingham C. Complications of tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Int Urol Nephrol 2023;56:63-7.

Lee JY, Jeh SU, Kim MD, Kang DH, Kwon JK, Ham WS, et al. Intraoperative and postoperative feasibility and safety of total tubeless, tubeless, small-bore tube, and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials. BMC Urol 2017;17:48.

Downloads

Published

2026-06-28

How to Cite

Chaudhary, P., Kamble, A. ., Potdar, O., & Sharma, S. (2026). Comparison of tubeless drainage and nephrostomy tube as a drainage method after percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedure: A prospective study. Insight Urology, 47(1), 12–9. https://doi.org/10.52786/isu.a.119

Issue

Section

Original article