The Open Urology & Nephrology Journal




ISSN: 1874-303X ― Volume 12, 2019

Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Can be a Choice, Why Not?



Mert Ali Karadag* , 1, Kursat Cecen1, Aslan Demir1, Ramazan Kocaaslan1, Kerem Taken2, Fatih Altunrende3
1 Kafkas University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Urology, Kars, Turkey
2 Yuzuncuyil University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Urology, Van, Turkey
3 Bilim University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been widely accepted and is commonly used to treat renal calculi. The optimal drainage of kidney after PCNL has not been clearly determined yet. Placement of an 18F to 24F nephrostomy tube at the end of the procedure is accepted as standard of care to date. The main advantages are adequate renal drainage, hemostatic tamponade and providing renal access for second look PCNL. However, based on the concept that the purpose of the tube is only to maintain adequate drainage of the kidney, a “tubeless” approach has been developed by placing a ureteral stent or catheter to provide drainage after PCNL instead of a nephrostomy tube. Tubeless PCNL is an effective and safe procedure for treatment of renal stones in selected cases. This procedure can even be chosen for patients with previous renal surgery, and hemorrhagic tendency. By using this method, less postoperative pain and a shorter hospital stay can be achieved, when compared with conventional PCNL. There is a controversy over ideal drainage system after PCNL in recent years. Herein, we made a systematic review for efficacy and safety of tubeless PCNL, totally tubeless PCNL, discussed different variations and compared the outcomes of this technique with standart PCNL.

Keywords : Complications, percutaneous renal surgery, renal stones, totally tubeless, tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy, urolithiasis.


Article Information


Identifiers and Pagination:

Year: 2014
Volume: 7
First Page: 4
Last Page: 7
Publisher Id: TOUNJ-7-4
DOI: 10.2174/1874303X01407010004

Article History:

Received Date: 17/12/2013
Revision Received Date: 14/4/2014
Acceptance Date: 15/4/2014
Electronic publication date: 16/5/2014

Article Metrics:

CrossRef Citations:
0

Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 1105
Abstract HTML Views: 750
PDF Downloads: 291
ePub Downloads: 170
Total Views/Downloads: 2316

Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 590
Abstract HTML Views: 421
PDF Downloads: 195
ePub Downloads: 128
Total Views/Downloads: 1334
Geographical View

Licensee Bentham Open

open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.


* Address correspondence to this author at the Kafkas University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Urology, Kars, Turkey; Tel: +90 532 558 43 24; karadagmert@yahoo.com




BACKGROUND

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been widely accepted and commonly used to treat renal calculi [1Matlaga BR, Kim SC, Lingeman JE. Improving outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: access EAU Update Series 2005; 3: 37-43.]. The optimal drainage of kidney after PCNL has not been clearly determined yet. Placement of an 18F to 24F nephrostomy tube at the end of the procedure is accepted as standart of care to date. The main advantages are adequate renal drainage, hemo-static tamponade and providing renal access for second look PCNL.

However, based on the concept that the purpose of the tube is only to maintain adequate drainage of the kidney, a “tubeless” approach has been developed by placing a ureteral stent or catheter to provide drainage after PCNL instead of a nephrostomy tube.

Today, several studies are stating the superiority of tubeless PCNL over conventional PCNL in terms of less morbidity, lower postoperative pain and a shorter hospital stay [2Desai 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: 565-7.-5Akman T, Binbay M, Yuruk E , et al. Tubeless procedure is most important factor in reducing length of hospitalization after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: results of unvariable and multivariable models Urology 2011; 77: 299-304.].

AIM

As a result, there is a controversy over ideal drainage system after PCNL in recent years. Here, we made a systematic review for efficacy and safety of tubeless PCNL, totally tubeless PCNL, discussed different variations and compared the outcomes of this technique with standart PCNL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies having high number of patients were selected from the following sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), medline, EMBASE, pubmed etc. These heading terms were used for searching the studies: percutaneous nephrolithotomy, tubeless percuta-neous nephroli-thotomy, tubeless, nephrostomy tube or nephrostomy drainage. The retrieval time ended in April 2013.

RESULTS

History of Tubeless PCNL

In 1984, Wickham et al. first published the results of 100 patients who underwent PCNL in whom no ureteral catheter, no stent or no nephrostomy tubes were used. They concluded that, this approach was safe and efficient with shorter hospital stay (<24 hours) [6Wickham JE, Miller RA, Kellett MJ, Payne SR. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: one stage or two? Br J Urol 1984; 56: 582-.]. In 1997, Bellman et al. reported the results of 20 patients with small stone burdens who underwent tubeless PCNL [7Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J, Gerspach J, Kurtz S, Stout L. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery J Urol 1997; 157: 1578-82.]. The authors stated that this technique was uncomplicated and had the advantages of less hospitalization time and decreased analgesic requirements.

Totally Tubeless PCNL

As firstly described by Wickham et al., another technical variation of tubeless PCNL is totally tubeless approach [6Wickham JE, Miller RA, Kellett MJ, Payne SR. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: one stage or two? Br J Urol 1984; 56: 582-.]. They concluded that if the operated kidney was stone free, collecting system was intact and there wasn’t any excessive bleeding, there was no need for nephrostomy drainage [6Wickham JE, Miller RA, Kellett MJ, Payne SR. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: one stage or two? Br J Urol 1984; 56: 582-.]. However, in 1986, Winfield et al. published the complications of 2 patients who had undergone a PCNL operation for simple upper tract calculi and early nephrostomy tube removal [8Winfield HN, Weyman P, Clayman RV. Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: complications of premature nephrostomy removal J Urol 1986; 136: 77-9.]. They experienced serious hemorrhage and urinary extravasation, urinoma requiring internal stenting, transfusion and prolonged hospitalization. This study was a cornerstone for the consideration of nephrostomy tube drainage should be provided during the first 24 to 48 hours after PCNL.

Today, there are few successful reports of totally tubeless PCNL. They mentioned that the hospitalization time, return to normal activities and analgesia requirements were significantly less in totally tubeless group, when compared with conventional PCNLs [9Bdesha AS, Jones CR, North EA, Pinfield J, Boyd PJ. Routine placement of a nephrostomy tube is not necessary after percutaneous nephrostolithotomy Br J Urol 1997; 79: 1-4.-1Matlaga BR, Kim SC, Lingeman JE. Improving outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: access EAU Update Series 2005; 3: 37-43.].

This approach was applied by Aghamir et al. for patients having renal anomalies like horseshoe kidneys, rotational anomalies and ectopic kidneys [12Aghamir SM, Mohammadi A, Mosavibahar SH, Meysamie AP. Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in renal anomalies J Endourol 2008; 22: 2131-34.]. The differences between tubeless and standart PCNL groups in terms of operation time, transfusion rates, complications, retreatment and overall stone free rate were not statistically significant. The hospitalization time, return to nomal activities and analgesia requirements were statistically lower in totally tubeless group.

In a recent study, same group assessed the outcome and safety of the totally tubeless PCNL in patients with renal stones in the upper pole of the kidney and subcostal access [13Aghamir SM, Modaresi SS, Aloosh M, Tajik A. Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy for upper pole renal stone using subcostal access J Endourol 2011; 25: 583-6.]. Seventy patients with upper pole renal stones were enrolled in this study. Stone sizes were over 1.5 cm. All the stones were extracted through successful subcostal accesses. They stated that totally tubeless PCNL for the upper pole renal stone via subcostal access was accompanied by decreased hospital stay and analgesics use and a rapid return to normal activity.

These studies suggested that the best drainage of the kidney was the normal peristalting ureter. However, this approach has not been accepted worldwide, due to obstruction chance of the ureter with stone fragments or blood clots after stone extraction. Most centers prefer some kind of internal drainage after tubeless procedures.

Tubeless PCNL vs Conventional PCNL

To the best of our knowledge, there are only 3 studies in the literature comparing tubeless PCNL with standart nephrostomy drainage in a randomized fashion [2Desai 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: 565-7.,3Marcovich R, Jacobson AI, Singh J , et al. No panecea for drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy J Endourol 2004; 18: 743-.,14Feng MI, Tamaddon K, Mikhail A, Kaptein JS, Bellman GC. Prospective randomized study of various techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy Urology 2001; 58: 345-50.]. Desai et al. reported the results of a study that compared large and small nephrostomy drainage tubes with tubeless PCNL [2Desai 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: 565-7.]. The main inclusion criteria was single subcostal access and absence of previous surgery on the ipsilateral renal unit. There were 10 cases in each study group. The stone burden ranged between 243 mm2 and 264 mm2. Marcovich et al. likewise compared large and small nephrostomy tubes and tubeless PCNL in a randomized study [3Marcovich R, Jacobson AI, Singh J , et al. No panecea for drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy J Endourol 2004; 18: 743-.]. There were 20 patients in each study group, and the main exclusion criteria were previous surgery on the ipsilateral renal unit and the need for supracostal puncture. The stone sizes were between 3 and 3.6 cm. Feng and colleagues compared the results of standart PCNL, mini-PCNL, and tubeless PCNL. The number of patients in each study group ranged from 8 to 10 [14Feng MI, Tamaddon K, Mikhail A, Kaptein JS, Bellman GC. Prospective randomized study of various techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy Urology 2001; 58: 345-50.]. Similar to previously reported studies, their exclusion criteria was patients having more than 2 access tracts. The stone burden ranged between 4.38 and 8.36 cm2. Marcovich et al. could not find any overwhelming advantage of any drainage system over the others [3Marcovich R, Jacobson AI, Singh J , et al. No panecea for drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy J Endourol 2004; 18: 743-.]. The other 2 studies demonstrated that tubeless PCNL was associated with the less postoperative pain and urinary leakage, shorter hospital stay, and lower morbidity [2Desai 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: 565-7.,14Feng MI, Tamaddon K, Mikhail A, Kaptein JS, Bellman GC. Prospective randomized study of various techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy Urology 2001; 58: 345-50.].

Tubeless PCNL in Obese Patients

Yang et al. reported safe and effective tubeless percutaneous renal surgery in obese and morbidly obese patients [15Yang RM, Bellman GC. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery in obese patients Urology 2004; 63: 1036-40.]. They analysed the clinical data of a subset of patients who were considered normal weight (Body Mass Index (BMI): 18.5-25), overweight (BMI: 25-30), obese (BMI: 30-40) and morbidly obese (BMI>40). Of these patients, 5 (3.8%) were morbidly obese, 28 (21.2%) were obese, 55 (41.4%) were considered overweight. The influence of BMI on the transfusion rates, days of hospitalization, and stone free outcome was compared. The stone group did not demonstrate statistically significant relationships between BMI and transfusion rate, length of hospitalization and stone free rate.

Tubeless PCNL Choice

Most studies focused on choosing tubeless PCNL only in selected patients with uncomplicated stones [6Wickham JE, Miller RA, Kellett MJ, Payne SR. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: one stage or two? Br J Urol 1984; 56: 582-.,7Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J, Gerspach J, Kurtz S, Stout L. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery J Urol 1997; 157: 1578-82.,16Limb J, Bellman GC. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery: review of first 112 patients Urology 2002; 59: 527-31.]. The inclusion criteria for tubeless PCNL was a single renal access (not supracostal), stone burden < 3 cm, operation time less than 2 hours, no significant perforations and bleeding, no requirement for second look procedure and complete clearance of stones.

Tubeless PCNL After Supracostal Access?

In 2007, Sofikerim et al. published the results of 48 patients who underwent PCNL via supracostal accesses [17Sofikerim M, Demirci D, Huri E, Ersekerci E, Karacagil M. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: safe even in supracostal access J Endourol 2007; 21: 967-71.]. The patients were randomized to either have an 18F re-entry nephrostomy tube (Group 1) or a 6F double J (D-J) stent (Group 2). The two groups were well matched for age, sex, stone size, stone laterality, and number of previous renal procedures. Postoperative visual analog pain scale (VAS) scores at 8, 24 hours and 14 days after surgery, analgesic use in hospital, length of hospital stay, success rate, blood transfusion rate and postoperative complications were compared for 2 groups. The group 2 had statistically significant decreased hospital stay, lower analgesic requirement and VAS scores at 8 and 24 hours after surgery. The rate of blood transfusion in the 2 groups was similar. There was no difference between the groups in VAS scores on postoperative day 14. Interestingly, the number of supracostal accesses was significantly higher in group 2 than group 1. There was no urine leakage or formation of urinoma in patients with D-J stents. The authors concluded that tubeless PCNL was safe and effective even after supracostal access and was associated with less postoperative pain and a shorter hospital stay.

Tubeless PCNL in Children

In a recent study, Bilen et al. analysed the outcomes of tubeless mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants and preschool children, and compared them with age matched controls, who underwent nephrostomy drainage [18Bilen CY, Gunay M, Ozden E, Inci K, Sarikaya S, Tekgul S. Tubeless mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants and preschool children: a preliminary report J Urol 2010; 184: 2498-502.]. A total of 28 renal units in 26 children were operated for stone disease using the mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Children who were stone free and had a clear nephrostomy tract were inserted ureteral catheters. Those with residual stones or bleeding from the nephrostomy tract underwent nephrostomy drainage. Both groups were compared in terms of patient and stone characteristics, post operative findings. They found that surgery and fluoroscopy times were shorter in the tubeless group. Complication rates were higher and hospital stay was longer in the nephrostomy group. Tubeless group had a 91.6% stone free rate, whereas nephrostomy group had a rate of 78.5%. According to the results, they concluded that tubeless percuta-neous nephrolithotomy could be a safe option for selected children with renal stone disease. Patient selection like low stone volume and infection free stones that were removed completely without bleeding was the most important factor for safety and success of the procedure.

Salem and colleagues assessed the effectiveness of tubeless PCNL in 20 children with an average age of 7.5 years [19Salem HK, Morsi HA, Omran A, Daw MA. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children J Pediatr Urol 2007; 3: 235-8.]. There was no significant bleeding intra or postoperatively. They concluded that tubeless PCNL had the advantages of lower hospital stay and pain, when compared with a group of 10 children having similar characteristics with nephrostomy drainage.

Tubeless PCNL in Obese Patients

Yang et al. reported safe and effective tubeless percutaneous renal surgery in obese and morbidly obese patients [15Yang RM, Bellman GC. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery in obese patients Urology 2004; 63: 1036-40.]. They analysed the clinical data of a subset of patients who were considered normal weight (Body Mass Index (BMI): 18.5-25), overweight (BMI: 25-30), obese (BMI: 30-40) and morbidly obese (BMI>40). Of these patients, 5 (3.8%) were morbidly obese, 28 (21.2%) were obese, 55 (41.4%) were considered overweight. The influence of BMI on the transfusion rates, days of hospitalization, and stone free outcome was compared. The stone group did not demonstrate statistically significant relationships between BMI and transfusion rate, length of hospitalization and stone free rate.

Tubeless PCNL with Previous Open Surgery

Shah et al. published the results of 25 patiens with a history of ipsilateral open surgery who underwent tubeless PCNL [20Shah HN, Mahajan AP, Hegde SS, Bansal M. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with previous ipsilateral open surgery: a feasibility study with review of the literature J Endourol 2008; 22: 19-24.]. Their exclusion criteria was cases requiring more than 2 accesses, significant bleeding, and a significant residual stone burden that required a second look PCNL. The perioperative outcome of these patients was retrospectively compared with same number of patients having conventional PCNL with previous open renal surgery. They found that tubeless group required less analgesics and had a 10 hour earlier discharge. They concluded that this technique was safe and had the advantages even in cases with a history of open renal surgery.

Safety of Tubeless PCNL in Patients with Hemorrhagic Diatesis

Jou and colleagues reported their experience of performing tubeless PCNL in patients with cirrhosis and on antiplatelet therapy [21Jou YC, Shen CH, Lin CT, Cheng MC, Chen PC, Tsai YS. Safety and efficacy of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients on anti-platelet therapy and cirrhotic patients Urol Res 2011; 39: 393-6.]. At the end of the procedure, all the bleeding points were cauterized through renal access for hemostasis. There were 16 patients having antiplatelet therapy, and 6 were cirrhotic. The average hospital stay was 3.8 days and the stone free rate was 87.5%. There was no uncontrolled hemorrhage during and after the operation, only one patient required blood transfusion postoperatively. No patient experienced any thromboembolic complications. Finally, they suggested that with careful hemostasis, tubeless PCNL procedure can be applied to patients having bleeding tendency.

Tubeless PCNL in Patients with Staghorn Calculi

The feasibility of tubeless PCNL was investigated in a very recent study from Korea [22Lee SC, Kim CH, Kim KT, et al. Is tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy a feasible technique for the treatment of staghorn calculi? Korean J Urol 2013; 54: 693-.]. The aim of the study was to investigate and compare the outcomes of conventional PCNL and tubeless PCNL in patients with staghorn calculi. The study had a retrospective nature and included a period of 9 years. A total of 165 patients were enrolled in the study. Conventional approach was preferred for 106 patients and tubeless for 59. There were not any significant differences between two groups in terms of sex, age, BMI, stone laterality. The mean stone burden of conventional and tubeless approach was 633.6±667.4 mm² and 529.9±362.8 mm², respectively. They revealed a stone free rate of 78% in patients who underwent tubeless PCNL; but this value was 69.8% in patients who underwent conventional approach. This difference was not statistically significant. The interesting point was that when the complications like fever, bleeding, infection between 2 groups were compared, no significant differences were encountered. They concluded that tubeless PCNL in patients with staghorn calculi had the same outcomes of conventional approach and could be preferred in this patient population. For prevention of hemorrhage, the investigators placed 2 pieces of Cutanplast (Mascia Brunelli, Italy) via the nephrostomy tract at the end of tubeless procedures.

The Usage of Hemostatic Agents in Tubeless PCNL

The outcomes and efficacy of autologous fibrin sealant usage in tubeless PCNL was investigated in a study [23Ziaee SAM, Sarhangnejad R, Abolghasemi H, et al. Autologous fibrin sealant in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy a prospective study Urol J 2013; 10(3): 999-1003.]. The investigation was a prospective study and included 43 patients who underwent tubeless PCNL. The autologous fibrin sealant was used in 15 patients and the other 28 was not. The peroperative parameters like mean stone burden, sex, age, laterality were statistically insignificant. The mean postoperative hemoglobin value of patients with autologous fibrin sealant was 12.93±1.43 gr/dl and same value was 12.54±1.55 gr/dl for patients without the sealant. The only statistically significant difference between two groups was mean catheter duration. The mean catheter duration of patients with fibrin sealant was statistically lower than the others. They concluded that autologous fibrin sealant did not affect the outcomes of tubeless PCNL; but its use in PCNL was safe.

The usage of a new antihemostatic agent called as Ankaferd Blood Stopper™ (ABS) was investigated in a recent study [24Istanbulluoglu MO, Kaynar M, Cicek T, Kosan M, Ozturk B, Ozkardes H. A new hemostatic agent (Ankaferd Blood Stopper(®)) in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy a prospective randomized study J Endourol 2013; 27: 1126-30.]. The study was prospective and included 90 patients. There were 2 groups, group 1 involved the patients in whom ABS was used and the other not. Mean age, stone size, access number, serum creatinine change, operation time, renal thickness, VAS score and hospitalization time were not statistically different between 2 groups. Albeit the nephroscope time was longer in ABS group, hemoglobin decrease and urine clarity time were statistically lower when compared with the other group. Hemoglobin decrease was 1.40±1.04 gr/dl in ABS group; but this value was 1.84±1.15 gr/dl in control group (p=0.034). The urine clarity of ABS and control group was 9.60±5.50 hours and 11.95±4.71 hours, respectively (p=0.012). They concluded that ABS was an efficient and reliable hemostatic agent in tubeless PCNL.

Tachosil® was the another antihemostatic agent that was used in tubeless PCNL tract similarly with local anesthetic molecules that were used for relief of pain [25Kirac M, Tepeler A, Bozkurt OF , et al. The efficacy of bupivacaine infiltration on the nephrostomy tract in tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study Urology 2013; 82: 526-31.]. Its efficacy in reducing urine leakage and bleeding was investigated in a prospective, randomized trial [26Cormio L, Perrone A, Di Fino G , et al. Tachosil(®) sealed tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy to reduce urine leakage and bleeding: outcome of a randomized controlled study J Urol 2012; 188: 145-50.]. A total of 100 patients who underwent PCNL were randomized to either receive a 16Fr nephrostomy tube (Group 1) or Tachosil in the tract (Group 2). All of the patients were inserted d-j stents. They revealed that tract related complications were significantly more common in group 1 (25.5% vs 2%, p<0.001). Albeit the urinary leakage in group 1 was statistically higher than group 2 (19.1% vs 2%, p=0.007), the perirenal hematoma formation was not (6.4% vs 0%, p=0.113). There was not a statistically significant difference among the groups in terms of analgesic doses and VAS scores. The authors concluded that even failed in reducing pain and analgesic requirement, Tachosil® provided better tract control and shorter hospital stay than the group with nephrostomy tube.

CONCLUSION

Tubeless PCNL is an effective and safe procedure for treatment of renal stones in selected cases. This procedure can even be chosen for patients with previous renal surgery, hemorrhagic tendency, high BMI, staghorn calculi and upper pole stones. By using this method, less postoperative pain and a shorter hospital stay can be achieved, when compared with conventional PCNL. We think that these results should encourage urologists for choice of tubeless PCNL in selected cases. In the future, tubeless approach may be more palatable to patients than standart PCNL in terms of less hospital stay and lower analgesics requirement.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors confirm that this article content has no conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Declared none.

REFERENCES

[1] Matlaga BR, Kim SC, Lingeman JE. Improving outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy: access EAU Update Series 2005; 3: 37-43.
[2] 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: 565-7.
[3] Marcovich R, Jacobson AI, Singh J , et al. No panecea for drainage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy J Endourol 2004; 18: 743-.
[4] Tefekli A, Altunrende F, Tepeler K, Tas A, Aydin S, Muslumanoglu AY. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in selected patients: a prospective randomized comparison Int Urol Nephrol 2007; 39: 57-61.
[5] Akman T, Binbay M, Yuruk E , et al. Tubeless procedure is most important factor in reducing length of hospitalization after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: results of unvariable and multivariable models Urology 2011; 77: 299-304.
[6] Wickham JE, Miller RA, Kellett MJ, Payne SR. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: one stage or two? Br J Urol 1984; 56: 582-.
[7] Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J, Gerspach J, Kurtz S, Stout L. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery J Urol 1997; 157: 1578-82.
[8] Winfield HN, Weyman P, Clayman RV. Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: complications of premature nephrostomy removal J Urol 1986; 136: 77-9.
[9] Bdesha AS, Jones CR, North EA, Pinfield J, Boyd PJ. Routine placement of a nephrostomy tube is not necessary after percutaneous nephrostolithotomy Br J Urol 1997; 79: 1-4.
[10] Karami H, Gholamrezaie HR. Totally tubeless nephrolithotomy in selected patients J Endourol 2004; 18: 475-6.
[11] Aghamir SM, Hosseini SR, Gooran S. Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy J Endourol 2004; 18: 647-8.
[12] Aghamir SM, Mohammadi A, Mosavibahar SH, Meysamie AP. Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in renal anomalies J Endourol 2008; 22: 2131-34.
[13] Aghamir SM, Modaresi SS, Aloosh M, Tajik A. Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy for upper pole renal stone using subcostal access J Endourol 2011; 25: 583-6.
[14] Feng MI, Tamaddon K, Mikhail A, Kaptein JS, Bellman GC. Prospective randomized study of various techniques of percutaneous nephrolithotomy Urology 2001; 58: 345-50.
[15] Yang RM, Bellman GC. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery in obese patients Urology 2004; 63: 1036-40.
[16] Limb J, Bellman GC. Tubeless percutaneous renal surgery: review of first 112 patients Urology 2002; 59: 527-31.
[17] Sofikerim M, Demirci D, Huri E, Ersekerci E, Karacagil M. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: safe even in supracostal access J Endourol 2007; 21: 967-71.
[18] Bilen CY, Gunay M, Ozden E, Inci K, Sarikaya S, Tekgul S. Tubeless mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants and preschool children: a preliminary report J Urol 2010; 184: 2498-502.
[19] Salem HK, Morsi HA, Omran A, Daw MA. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children J Pediatr Urol 2007; 3: 235-8.
[20] Shah HN, Mahajan AP, Hegde SS, Bansal M. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with previous ipsilateral open surgery: a feasibility study with review of the literature J Endourol 2008; 22: 19-24.
[21] Jou YC, Shen CH, Lin CT, Cheng MC, Chen PC, Tsai YS. Safety and efficacy of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients on anti-platelet therapy and cirrhotic patients Urol Res 2011; 39: 393-6.
[22] Lee SC, Kim CH, Kim KT, et al. Is tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy a feasible technique for the treatment of staghorn calculi? Korean J Urol 2013; 54: 693-.
[23] Ziaee SAM, Sarhangnejad R, Abolghasemi H, et al. Autologous fibrin sealant in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy a prospective study Urol J 2013; 10(3): 999-1003.
[24] Istanbulluoglu MO, Kaynar M, Cicek T, Kosan M, Ozturk B, Ozkardes H. A new hemostatic agent (Ankaferd Blood Stopper(®)) in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy a prospective randomized study J Endourol 2013; 27: 1126-30.
[25] Kirac M, Tepeler A, Bozkurt OF , et al. The efficacy of bupivacaine infiltration on the nephrostomy tract in tubeless and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study Urology 2013; 82: 526-31.
[26] Cormio L, Perrone A, Di Fino G , et al. Tachosil(®) sealed tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy to reduce urine leakage and bleeding: outcome of a randomized controlled study J Urol 2012; 188: 145-50.
Society Affiliation


Endorsements



"Open access will revolutionize 21st century knowledge work and accelerate the diffusion of ideas and evidence that support just in time learning and the evolution of thinking in a number of disciplines."


Daniel Pesut
(Indiana University School of Nursing, USA)

"It is important that students and researchers from all over the world can have easy access to relevant, high-standard and timely scientific information. This is exactly what Open Access Journals provide and this is the reason why I support this endeavor."


Jacques Descotes
(Centre Antipoison-Centre de Pharmacovigilance, France)

"Publishing research articles is the key for future scientific progress. Open Access publishing is therefore of utmost importance for wider dissemination of information, and will help serving the best interest of the scientific community."


Patrice Talaga
(UCB S.A., Belgium)

"Open access journals are a novel concept in the medical literature. They offer accessible information to a wide variety of individuals, including physicians, medical students, clinical investigators, and the general public. They are an outstanding source of medical and scientific information."


Jeffrey M. Weinberg
(St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, USA)

"Open access journals are extremely useful for graduate students, investigators and all other interested persons to read important scientific articles and subscribe scientific journals. Indeed, the research articles span a wide range of area and of high quality. This is specially a must for researchers belonging to institutions with limited library facility and funding to subscribe scientific journals."


Debomoy K. Lahiri
(Indiana University School of Medicine, USA)

"Open access journals represent a major break-through in publishing. They provide easy access to the latest research on a wide variety of issues. Relevant and timely articles are made available in a fraction of the time taken by more conventional publishers. Articles are of uniformly high quality and written by the world's leading authorities."


Robert Looney
(Naval Postgraduate School, USA)

"Open access journals have transformed the way scientific data is published and disseminated: particularly, whilst ensuring a high quality standard and transparency in the editorial process, they have increased the access to the scientific literature by those researchers that have limited library support or that are working on small budgets."


Richard Reithinger
(Westat, USA)

"Not only do open access journals greatly improve the access to high quality information for scientists in the developing world, it also provides extra exposure for our papers."


J. Ferwerda
(University of Oxford, UK)

"Open Access 'Chemistry' Journals allow the dissemination of knowledge at your finger tips without paying for the scientific content."


Sean L. Kitson
(Almac Sciences, Northern Ireland)

"In principle, all scientific journals should have open access, as should be science itself. Open access journals are very helpful for students, researchers and the general public including people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals. The articles are high standard and cover a wide area."


Hubert Wolterbeek
(Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands)

"The widest possible diffusion of information is critical for the advancement of science. In this perspective, open access journals are instrumental in fostering researches and achievements."


Alessandro Laviano
(Sapienza - University of Rome, Italy)

"Open access journals are very useful for all scientists as they can have quick information in the different fields of science."


Philippe Hernigou
(Paris University, France)

"There are many scientists who can not afford the rather expensive subscriptions to scientific journals. Open access journals offer a good alternative for free access to good quality scientific information."


Fidel Toldrá
(Instituto de Agroquimica y Tecnologia de Alimentos, Spain)

"Open access journals have become a fundamental tool for students, researchers, patients and the general public. Many people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals benefit of them on a daily basis. The articles are among the best and cover most scientific areas."


M. Bendandi
(University Clinic of Navarre, Spain)

"These journals provide researchers with a platform for rapid, open access scientific communication. The articles are of high quality and broad scope."


Peter Chiba
(University of Vienna, Austria)

"Open access journals are probably one of the most important contributions to promote and diffuse science worldwide."


Jaime Sampaio
(University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal)

"Open access journals make up a new and rather revolutionary way to scientific publication. This option opens several quite interesting possibilities to disseminate openly and freely new knowledge and even to facilitate interpersonal communication among scientists."


Eduardo A. Castro
(INIFTA, Argentina)

"Open access journals are freely available online throughout the world, for you to read, download, copy, distribute, and use. The articles published in the open access journals are high quality and cover a wide range of fields."


Kenji Hashimoto
(Chiba University, Japan)

"Open Access journals offer an innovative and efficient way of publication for academics and professionals in a wide range of disciplines. The papers published are of high quality after rigorous peer review and they are Indexed in: major international databases. I read Open Access journals to keep abreast of the recent development in my field of study."


Daniel Shek
(Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong)

"It is a modern trend for publishers to establish open access journals. Researchers, faculty members, and students will be greatly benefited by the new journals of Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. in this category."


Jih Ru Hwu
(National Central University, Taiwan)


Browse Contents



Webmaster Contact: info@benthamopen.net
Copyright © 2019 Bentham Open