Objective: To compare outcomes and postoperative quality of life (QoL) among patients with kidney stone who received mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL), partial tubeless mPCNL or mPCNL with ureter catheter in a prospective randomized clinical trial. Methods: From May 2017 to December 2017, 60 patients with kidney stone who underwent mPCNL were randomized into 3 groups: Group I (mPCNL), Group II (partial tubeless mPCNL), Group III (mPCNL with ureter catheter). We evaluated perioperative characteristics, stone clearance, analgesic requirements and QoL by using the Wisconsin Stone QOL questionnaire. Results: The age, gender, stone diameter, body mass index, length of operation, drop in hemoglobin and stone-free rates for the 3 groups were similar among these groups. However, the postoperative visual analog scale and the analgesic requirement in Group II were significantly the lowest (p < 0.05). According to Wisconsin Stone QOL questionnaire, compared to Group I, statistical significant difference in the QoL was seen in Group II and III, indicating a meaningful and immediate improvement in the postoperative QoL following mPCNL. Conclusion: Compared with standard and partial tubeless mPCNL, mPCNL with ureter catheter is a safe and useful form of mPCNL, which can offer better QoL and is more cost effective.

Keywords:
Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Quality of life, Randomized control study, Wisconsin stone quality-of-life questionnaire, Tubeless
1.
Wei C, Zhang Y, Pokhrel G, Liu X, Gan J, Yu X, Ye Z, Wang S: Research progress of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Int Urol Nephrol 2018; 50: 807–817.
2.
Sofer M, Beri A, Friedman A, Aviram G, Mabjeesh NJ, Chen J, Ben-Chaim J, Greenstein A, Matzkin H: Extending the application of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology 2007; 3: 412–416; discussion 416–417.
3.
Wickham JE, Miller RA, Kellett MJ, Payne SR: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: one stage or two? Br J Urol 1984; 6: 582–585.
4.
Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J, Gerspach J, Kurtz S, Stout L: Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol 1997; 5: 1578–1582.
5.
Akman T, Binbay M, Yuruk E, Sari E, Seyrek M, Kaba M, Berberoglu Y, Muslumanoglu AY: Tubeless procedure is most important factor in reducing length of hospitalization after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: results of univariable and multivariable models. Urology 2011; 2: 299–304.
6.
Yun SI, Lee YH, Kim JS, Cho SR, Kim BS, Kwon JB: Comparative study between standard and totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Korean J Urol 2012; 11: 785–789.
7.
Shen P, Liu Y, Wang J: Nephrostomy tube-free versus nephrostomy tube for renal drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int 2012; 3: 298–306.
8.
Agrawal MS, Sharma M, Agarwal K: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy using antegrade tether: a randomized study. J Endourol 2014; 6: 644–648.
9.
Agrawal MS, Agrawal M: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Indian J Urol 2010; 1: 16–24.
10.
Unsal A, Resorlu B: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children: myth or reality? Urol Int 2012; 88: 489–490.
11.
Kara C, Resorlu B, Bayindir M, Unsal A: A randomized comparison of totally tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in elderly patients. Urology 2010; 2: 289–293.
12.
Shah HN, Kausik VB, Hegde SS, Shah JN, Bansal MB: Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective feasibility study and review of previous reports. BJU Int 2005; 6: 879–883.
13.
Aghamir SM, Mohammadi A, Mosavibahar SH, Meysamie AP: Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in renal anomalies. J Endourol 2008; 9: 2131–2134.
14.
Jun-Ou J, Lojanapiwat B: Supracostal access: does it affect tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy efficacy and safety? Int Braz J Urol 2010; 2: 171–176.
15.
Aghamir SM, Elmimehr R, Modaresi SS, Salavati A: Comparing bleeding complications of double and single access totally tubeless PCNL: is it safe to obtain more accesses? Urol Int 2016; 1: 73–76.
16.
Harraz AM, Osman Y, El-Nahas AR, Elsawy AA, Fakhreldin I, Mahmoud O, El-Assmy A, Shokeir AA: Residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: comparison of intraoperative assessment and postoperative non-contrast computerized tomography. World J Urol 2017; 8: 1241–1246.
17.
Desoky EA, Fawzi AM, Sakr A, Eliwa A, El Sayed ER, El Sayed D, Shahin AM, Salem EA, Kamel HM, Shabana W, Kamel M: Immediate versus delayed shockwave lithotripsy for inaccessible stones after uncomplicated percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Arab J Urol 2017; 1: 30–35.
18.
de la Rosette JJ, Opondo D, Daels FP, Giusti G, Serrano A, Kandasami SV, Wolf JS Jr, Grabe M, Gravas S: Categorisation of complications and validation of the Clavien score for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 2012; 2: 246–255.
19.
Penniston KL, Nakada SY: Development of an instrument to assess the health related quality of life of kidney stone formers. J Urol 2013; 3: 921–930.
20.
Penniston KL, Antonelli JA, Viprakasit DP, Averch TD, Sivalingam S, Sur RL, Pais VM Jr, Chew BH, Bird VG, Nakada SY: Validation and reliability of the Wisconsin stone quality of life questionnaire. J Urol 2017; 5: 1280–1288.
21.
Zhao PT, Hoenig DM, Smith AD, Okeke Z: A randomized controlled comparison of nephrostomy drainage vs ureteral stent following percutaneous nephrolithotomy using the Wisconsin stoneQOL. J Endourol 2016; 12: 1275–1284.
22.
Moosanejad N, Firouzian A, Hashemi SA, Bahari M, Fazli M: Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial. Braz J Med Biol Res 2016; 4:e4878.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
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.