Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Filters applied. Clear all
Review
. 2017 Nov 13;17(1):102.
doi: 10.1186/s12894-017-0295-2.

Tubeless Versus Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: An Update Meta-Analysis

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Review

Tubeless Versus Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: An Update Meta-Analysis

Yang Xun et al. BMC Urol. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: To update a previously published systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

Methods: A systematic literature search of EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed to confirm relevant studies. The scientific literature was screened in accordance with the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. After quality assessment and data extraction from the eligible studies, a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata SE 12.0.

Results: Fourteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1148 patients were included. Combined results demonstrated that tubeless PCNL was significantly associated with shorter operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD], -3.79 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.73 to -0.85; P = 0.012; I2 = 53.8%), shorter hospital stay (WMD, -1.27 days; 95% CI, -1.65 to -0.90; P < 0.001; I2 = 98.7%), faster time to return to normal activity (WMD, -4.24 days; 95% CI, -5.76 to -2.71; P < 0.001; I2 = 97.5%), lower postoperative pain scores (WMD, -16.55 mm; 95% CI, -21.60 to -11.50; P < 0.001; I2 = 95.7%), less postoperative analgesia requirements (standard mean difference, -1.09 mg; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.84; P < 0.001; I2 = 46.8%), and lower urine leakage (Relative risk [RR], 0.30; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.59; P = 0.001; I2 = 41.2%). There were no significant differences in postoperative hemoglobin reduction (WMD, -0.02 g/dL; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.01; P = 0.172; I2 = 41.5%), stone-free rate (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.05; P = 0.776; I2 = 0.0%), postoperative fever rate (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.93; P = 0.867; I2 = 0.0%), or blood transfusion rate (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.70; P = 0.538; I2 = 0.0%). The results of subgroup analysis were consistent with the overall findings. The sensitivity analysis indicated that most results remained constant when total tubeless or partial tubeless or mini-PCNL studies were excluded respectively.

Conclusions: Tubeless PCNL is an available and safe option in carefully evaluated and selected patients. It is significantly associated with the advantages of shorter hospital stay, shorter time to return to normal activity, lower postoperative pain scores, less analgesia requirement, and reduced urine leakage.

Keywords: Meta-analysis; PCNL; Percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Tubeless; Update.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the literature search and studies selection. RCT = randomized controlled trial
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
(a) Risk of bias for each included study. (b) Begg’ s funnel plot of the hospital stay. WMD = weighted mean difference
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Influence analysis of (a) hospital stay, (b) return to normal activity, (c) operative time and (d) postoperative pain scores
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plots and meta-analysis of (a) operative time, (b) hospital stay, (c) return to normal activity. WMD = weighted mean difference, CI = confidence interval
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plots and meta-analysis of (a) postoperative hemoglobin drop, (b) postoperative analgesia requirements, (c) postoperative pain scores. WMD = weighted mean difference, SMD = standardized mean difference, CI = confidence interval, POD = postoperative day
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Forest plots of (a) stone-free rate, (b) blood transfusion, fever and urine leakage. RR = relative risk, CI = confidence interval

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 2 articles

References

    1. Türk C, Neisius A, Petrik A, et al. Guidelines on urolithiasis. EAU. 2017. Available at: http://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/. Accessed 15 April 2017.
    1. Geraghty R, Jones P, Somani BK, et al. Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: a systematic review. J Endourol. 2017;31:547–556. doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0895. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ganpule AP, Vijayakumar M, Malpani A, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) a critical review. Int J Surg. 2016;36:660–664. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.11.028. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tirtayasa PMW, Yuri P, Birowo P, et al. Safety of tubeless or totally tubeless drainage and nephrostomy tube as a drainage following percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A comprehensive review. Asian J Surg. 2016;doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2016.03.003. - PubMed
    1. Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J, et al. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol. 1997;157:1578–1582. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64799-2. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback