British Journal of Medical & Surgical Urology
Volume 2, Issue 6 , Pages 238-244, November 2009

Changing practice to stented percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a 2 year experience

  • Ismail El-Mokadem

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Wansbeck Hospital, Ashington NE3 1EH, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: 88 Regent Road North, Gosforth, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE3 1EH, UK. Tel.: +44 (0)7973624985.
  • ,
  • Matthew Shaw

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Freeman Royal Hospital, Newcastle, UK
  • ,
  • Toby Page

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Freeman Royal Hospital, Newcastle, UK
  • ,
  • Ralph Marsh

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Sunderland Royal Hospital, UK
  • ,
  • Pravin Menezes

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Sunderland Royal Hospital, UK
  • ,
  • Peter J. English

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Sunderland Royal Hospital, UK
  • ,
  • Prakash Johnson

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Sunderland Royal Hospital, UK

Received 7 April 2009; received in revised form 18 July 2009; accepted 30 July 2009.

Summary 

Introduction

Stented PCNL is an increasingly practiced technique in which PCNL is performed without leaving a post-operative nephrostomy tube. We present our results from one of the biggest UK series to assess the impact of this technique on the safety, efficacy, length of hospital stay and analgesic requirement, to guide our future practice in terms of patient selection.

Patients and methods

Case notes of 56 stented PCNLs between October 2005 and 2007 were reviewed retrospectively and compared to a similar group of 50 conventional PCNLs (only a nephrostomy post-operatively) in terms of co-morbidities (ASA grade), stone burden, intra-operative details, complications, length of stay (LOS) and analgesic requirement. The stented technique was employed in complex stones and in anatomical abnormalities (e.g. horseshoe, solitary, and duplex systems). The use of a stent rather than a nephrostomy was decided at the time of surgery when satisfactory haemostasis and stone clearance were achieved at the end of the procedure.

Results

Co-morbidities, anatomical abnormalities, stone burden, operative time, number of punctures, access and infection rates were comparable. The stented technique was employed in complex stones (staghorn n=13, multiple stones n=11) and in patients with anatomical abnormalities (n=9). Overall stone free rate was 92.8% and 82% for the stented and the conventional groups, respectively. No haemorrhage or ureteric obstruction was reported in the stented group. All stent removals were uneventful. Mean LOS and analgesic requirement of diclofenac were markedly less in stented group. The number of stented procedures tripled from year 1 (n=14) to year 2 (n=42). Mean LOS dropped steadily from 68.6h in the first 6 months (n=5) to 47.4h in the last 6 months (n=22) with increased experience. Twenty-four patients (42%) were fit for discharge within 35h.

Conclusion

In our experience, the stented technique was well tolerated and has reduced the length of hospital stay with no evidence of loss of efficacy or increased morbidity even in complex stones or patients with anatomical abnormalities.

Keywords: PCNL, Ureteric stent, Tubeless, Nephrostomy

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 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.
 

PII: S1875-9742(09)00116-5

doi:10.1016/j.bjmsu.2009.07.004

British Journal of Medical & Surgical Urology
Volume 2, Issue 6 , Pages 238-244, November 2009