Objective: This article systematically analyses comparative studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus standard PCNL. Methods: The Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane and DARE databases were searched from 1997 to February 2011. Comparative studies evaluating outcomes from standard versus tubeless PCNL were included. Primary outcome measures were post-operative pain scoring, analgesic requirements, duration of hospitalisation/convalescence, operation time, major/minor complications and stone-free rates. Results: Twenty-four studies were included (11 randomised control trials and 13 retrospective or prospective studies). Levels of pain recorded, analgesic requirements, duration of inpatient stay and convalescence time were all significantly reduced in the tubeless PCNL group. Cost was reduced in two studies. Morbidity was not significantly different between the groups. There was no significant difference between groups regarding stone-free status. Discussion: This systematic review has demonstrated that tubeless PCNL is a viable alternative to tubed PCNL in uncomplicated cases. Benefits are as described above. There is no evidence suggesting that patient safety is compromised by the absence of post-operative nephrostomy. The tubeless method has been reported in challenging cases such as stag-horn stones, horseshoe or ectopic kidneys. Promising outcomes have been demonstrated in elderly patients and when clinical needs demand a supracostal approach. Multi-centre randomised controlled trials are needed to fully establish the effectiveness of the tubeless method.

Keywords:
Stones, Nephrolithotomy, Tubed, Tubeless, Percutaneous nephrolithotomy
1.
Fernström I, Johansson B: Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1976;10:257–259.
2.
Sofer M, Lidawi G, Keren-Paz G, et al: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: first 200 cases in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J 2010;12:164–167.
3.
Desai MR, Kukreja RA, Desai MM, et al: A prospective randomized comparison of type of nephrostomy drainage following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: large bore versus small bore versus tubeless. J Urol 2004;172:565–567.
4.
Singh I, Singh A, Mittal G: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it really less morbid? J Endourol 2008;22:427–434.
5.
Feng MI, Tamaddon K, Mikhail A, et al: Prospective randomized study of various techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 2001;58:345–350.
6.
Giusti G, Piccinelli A, Maugeri O, et al: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: tubeless or not tubeless? Urol Res 2009;37:153–158.
7.
Gupta NP, Mishra S, Suryawanshi M, et al: Comparison of standard with tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2008;22:1441–1446.
8.
Istanbulluoglu M, Cicek T, Ozturk B, et al: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: nephrostomy or tubeless or totally tubeless? Urology 2010;75:1043–1046.
9.
Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J, et al: Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 1997;157:1578–1582.
10.
Agrawal MS, Agrawal M, Gupta A, et al: A randomized comparison of tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2008;22:439–442.
11.
Berkman DS, Lee MW, Landman J, Gupta M: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with reversed Polaris Loop stent: reduced postoperative pain and narcotic use. J Endourol 2008;22:2245–2249.
12.
Shah HN, Mahajan AP, Hegde SS, Bansal M: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with previous ipsilateral open renal surgery: a feasibility study with review of literature. J Endourol 2008;22:19–24.
13.
Aghamir SM, Hosseini SR, Gooran S: Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2004;18:647–648.
14.
Falahatkar S, Khosropanah I, Roshani A, et al: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones. J Endourol 2008;22:1447–1451.
15.
Shah H, Khandkar A, Sodha H, et al: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: 3 years of experience with 454 patients. BJU Int 2009;104:840–846.
16.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700.
17.
CEBM (2009) Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Available online: www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence (accessed Dec 2010).
18.
Sofikerim M, Demirci D, Huri E, et al: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: safe even in supracostal access. J Endourol 2007;21:967–972.
19.
Shah HN, Sodha HS, Khandkar AA, et al: A randomized trial evaluating type of nephrostomy drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: small bore v tubeless. J Endourol 2008;22:1433–1439.
20.
Choi M, Brusky J, Weaver J, et al: Randomized trial comparing modified tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy with tailed stent with percutaneous nephrostomy with small-bore tube. J Endourol 2006;20:766–770.
21.
Crook TJ, Lockyer CR, Keoghane SR, Walmsley BH: Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2008;22:267–271.
22.
Kara C, Resorlu B, Bayindir M, Unsal A: A randomized comparison of totally tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients. Urology 2010;76:289–293.
23.
Karami H, Gholamrezaie HR: Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients. J Endourol 2004;18:475–476.
24.
Kwon S, Kim HG: A comparative study between standard and tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Korean J Urol 2007;48:45–48.
25.
Aghamir SM, Mohammadi A, Mosavibahar SH, Meysamie AP: Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in renal anomalies. J Endourol 2008;22:2131–2134.
26.
Marcovich R, Jacobson AI, Singh J, et al: No panacea for drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2004;18:743–747.
27.
Tefekli A, Altunrende F, Tepeler K, et al: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients: a prospective randomized comparison. Int Urol Nephrol 2007;39:57–63.
28.
Basiri A, Ahmadnia H, Moghaddam SM: The efficacy of conventional PCNL and two modifications to standard procedure. J Pak Med Assoc 2006;56:302–305.
29.
Yates DR, Safdar RK, Spencer PA, Parys BT: ‘Nephrostomy-free’ percutaneous nephrolithotomy: experience in a UK district general hospital. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2009;91:570–577.
30.
Agrawal MS, Agrawal M: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Indian J Urol 2010;26:16–24.
31.
Zilberman DE, Lipkin ME, de la Rosette JJ, et al: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy – the new standard of care? J Urol 2010;184:1261–1266.
32.
Yang RM, Bellman GC: Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery in obese patients. Urology 2004;63:1036–1040; discussion 1040–1041.
33.
Munver R, Delvecchio FC, Newman GE, Preminger GM: Critical analysis of supracostal access for percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 2001;166:1242–1246.
34.
Shah HN, Shah H, Hegde SS, et al: Safety and efficacy of supracostal access in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2006;20:1016–1021.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.