title: 'Nephrostomy-free' percutaneous nephrolithotomy: experience in a UK district general hospital.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the first-line treatment for large and complex renal calculi. Accepted UK practice is to insert a nephrostomy tube at the end of the procedure to drain the kidney and reduce potential complications. 'Tubeless' or 'nephrostomy-free' PCNL has been advocated in selected patients as it is thought to reduce length of hospital stay, analgesia requirements and pain experienced. We present our outcomes of a consecutive series (n = 101) of 'nephrostomy-free' PCNLs compared to standard PCNL over a 4-year period.
  
  
  METHODS
  Between January 2004 and October 2006, we performed 55 standard (with nephrostomy tube) PCNLs (Group 1). From October 2006 onwards, we changed our technique and have performed 46 consecutive 'nephrostomy-free' PCNLs (JJ stent inserted), independent of patient and stone factors (Group 2). We have compared the two groups in terms of length of hospital stay (LOS), analgesia requirements, transfusion rates, haemoglobin (Hb) decrease and immediate, early and late complications.
  
  
  RESULTS
  'Nephrostomy-free' PCNL significantly reduced the length of hospital stay (2.8 vs 5.1 days; P < 0.001), morphine-based analgesia requirements (23% no morphine required vs 2.8%; P < 0.001), transfusion rate (2.5% vs 7%; P < 0.01) and mean Hb decrease (1.89 g/dl vs 2.25 g/dl; P > 0.05). Overall, no patient experienced a serious complication. All attempted 'nephrostomy-free' PCNLs were completed (stone clearance 95%) and no patient needed an unplanned nephrostomy. Only 5% in Group 2 needed their ureteric JJ stent removing earlier than planned secondary to pain. Both groups were comparable in terms of immediate, early and late complications, though three patients in Group 1 developed chronic loin pain and one patient in the 'nephrostomy-free' group developed a delayed perirenal haematoma.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  'Nephrostomy-free' percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a safe, effective and feasible procedure independent of patient and stone factors. It decreases the length of hospital stay, the pain experienced and the need for morphine-based analgesia; we feel it should be the standard of care for patients undergoing a PCNL.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Rotherham District General Hospital, Rotherham, UK. d.yates@sheffield.ac.uk
authors.forename: D R
authors.initials: DR
authors.lastname: Yates
authors.forename: R K
authors.initials: RK
authors.lastname: Safdar
authors.forename: P A
authors.initials: PA
authors.lastname: Spencer
authors.forename: B T
authors.initials: BT
authors.lastname: Parys
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000698:Analgesia / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D001803:Blood Transfusion; D004322:Drainage / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006454:Hemoglobins / Q000032:analysis; D006769:Hospitals, General; D006801:Humans; D007669:Kidney Calculi / Q000150:complications / Q000601:surgery*; D007902:Length of Stay; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009403:Nephrostomy, Percutaneous / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D010149:Postoperative Pain / Q000188:drug therapy; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D006454:Hemoglobins
references.citation: J Endourol. 1999 Apr;13(3):177-80
references.pmid: 10360497
references.citation: World J Urol. 1998;16(6):375-7
references.pmid: 9870282
references.citation: J Endourol. 2008 Feb;22(2):267-71
references.pmid: 18095863
references.citation: Urology. 2007 Sep;70(3):412-6; discussion 416-7
references.pmid: 17905084
references.citation: Urology. 2002 Apr;59(4):527-31; discussion 531
references.pmid: 11927306
references.citation: Urology. 2001 Sep;58(3):345-50
references.pmid: 11549477
references.citation: J Endourol. 2008 Jan;22(1):19-24
references.pmid: 18177238
references.citation: Int Urol Nephrol. 2008;40(3):603-8
references.pmid: 18092142
references.citation: J Endourol. 2008 Feb;22(2):273-5
references.pmid: 18294032
references.citation: J Endourol. 2007 Dec;21(12):1411-3
references.pmid: 18052821
references.citation: J Endourol. 2008 Mar;22(3):427-34
references.pmid: 18355137
references.citation: Br J Urol. 1984 Dec;56(6):582-5
references.pmid: 6534470
references.citation: J Urol. 2004 Aug;172(2):565-7
references.pmid: 15247731
references.citation: J Endourol. 2008 Mar;22(3):439-42
references.pmid: 18257738
references.citation: J Urol. 1986 Jul;136(1):77-9
references.pmid: 3712621
references.citation: J Endourol. 2007 Sep;21(9):977-84
references.pmid: 17941772
references.citation: Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976;10(3):257-9
references.pmid: 1006190
references.citation: J Endourol. 2008 Jul;22(7):1441-6
references.pmid: 18690810
references.citation: J Endourol. 2001 Sep;15(7):711-3
references.pmid: 11697402
references.citation: J Urol. 1997 May;157(5):1578-82
references.pmid: 9112480
references.citation: J Urol. 2007 Sep;178(3 Pt 1):921-4
references.pmid: 17632155
references.citation: J Endourol. 2004 Jun;18(5):475-6
references.pmid: 15253824
references.citation: Urology. 2004 Jun;63(6):1036-40; discussion 1040-1
references.pmid: 15183942
references.citation: J Endourol. 2004 Sep;18(7):647-8
references.pmid: 15597653