A randomized trial evaluating type of nephrostomy drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: small bore v tubeless.

PURPOSE

To compare the outcome of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with small-bore nephrostomy drainage after PCNL.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We tested the hypothesis that tubeless PCNL is superior to small-bore nephrostomy drainage after PCNL in terms of postoperative pain, analgesic requirement, and hospital stay. To show a 10% difference in these parameters, a sample size of 30 persons per group would be needed. All patients undergoing PCNL from September 2005 to May 2006 were included in the study. Patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were then randomized to either a tubeless approach with insertion of a ureteral stent or placement of an 8F nephrostomy tube without insertion of a ureteral stent. The perioperative outcomes of patients in the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Tubeless PCNL was performed in 33 patients, and an 8F nephrostomy tube was placed in 32 patients. The two groups had comparable demographic data. The hemoglobin drop and complication rate between the two groups were comparable. Patients undergoing tubeless PCNL experienced less postoperative pain (P = 0.001), needed less analgesia (P = 0.006), and were discharged 9 hours earlier than patients in the other group. Complete stone clearance was achieved in 87.87% patients in the tubeless group and 87.5% patients in the nephrostomy group. In the tubeless group, 39.4% of patients had bothersome stent-related symptoms, of whom 61.5% needed analgesics and/or antispasmodic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Tubeless PCNL offers the potential advantages of decreased postoperative pain, analgesic requirement, and hospital stay without increasing the complications. It was associated with stent-related discomfort in 39% of patients.