Comparing Tubeless and Tubed Approaches in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Moderate Renal Calculi: Outcomes on Safety, Efficacy, Pain Management, Recovery Time, and Cost-Effectiveness

• Published in: Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) CA), 2023-05, Vol.15 (5), p.e39211-e39211
• Main Authors: Kr, Surag, Singh, Anshuman, Sharma, Pritam, Pai, Vivek, Choudhary, Anupam, Patil, Shreenath
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Clinical medicine; Consent; Creatinine; Electrolytes; Ethics; General Surgery; Hemoglobin; Internal Medicine; Mann-Whitney U test; Pain; Patients; Recovery (Medical); Urological surgery; Urology
• ISSN: 2168-8184; 2168-8184
• DOI: 10.7759/cureus.39211

Introduction This study focuses on investigating the effect of routine nephrostomy tube placement in patients with moderate renal calculi of size 2.5 cm or less who undergo uncomplicated percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) procedures. Previous studies have not specified whether only uncomplicated cases were included in the analysis, which may affect the results. This study aims to provide a clearer understanding of the effect of routine nephrostomy tube placement on blood loss in a more homogeneous patient population. Materials and methods A prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at our department over 18 months, dividing 60 patients with a single renal or upper ureteric calculus of size ≤2.5 cm into two groups: 30 patients in each group (group 1: tubed PCNL, group 2: tubeless PCNL). The primary outcome was the drop in perioperative hemoglobin level and the number of packed cell transfusions necessary. The secondary outcome included the mean pain score, analgesic requirement, length of hospital stay, time to return to normal activities, and the total cost of the procedure. Results The two groups were comparable in age, gender, comorbidities, and stone size. The postoperative hemoglobin level was significantly lower in the tubeless PCNL group (9.56 ± 2.13 gm/dL) compared to the tube PCNL group (11.32 ± 2.35 gm/dL) (p = 0.0037), and two patients in the tubeless group required blood transfusion. The duration of surgery, pain scores, and analgesic requirement were comparable between the two groups. The total procedure cost was significantly lower in the tubeless group (p = 0.0019), and the duration of hospital stay and time to return to daily activities were significantly shorter in the tubeless group (p < 0.0001). Conclusions Tubeless PCNL is a safe and effective alternative to conventional tube PCNL, with the advantages of shorter hospital stay, faster recovery, and lower procedure costs. Tube PCNL is associated with less blood loss and the need for transfusions. Patient preferences and bleeding risk should be considered when choosing between the two procedures.