Is TUBELESS PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY (PCNL) is really

worthwhile?

Original Article;

Authors

1) Dr Muhammad Muzammil TahirAssistant Professor UrologyFederal Post Graduate Medical Institute Lahore

2) Dr Ghazi KhanSenior Registrar Urology DepartmentShaikh Zayed Hospital Lahore

3) Dr Muhammad Usman KhanProfessor of UrologyFederal Post Graduate Medical Institute Lahore Pakistan

4) Dr Jamshed RahimAsisstant Professor UrologyFederal Post graduate medical InstituteLahore

Correspondence to; Dr Muhammad Muzammil TahirAssistant Professor UrologyFederal Post Graduate Medical Institute LahoreTel; 03214979631 E mail; dr_muzamil@yahoo.com

Is tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is really

worthwhile?

Abstract

Aims and objectives; To compare standard and tubeless PCNL in our patients

in term of need for analgesia, urinary leakage from nephrostomy site, hospital

stay and urinoma formation.

Material and methods; This is prospective study carried out in urology

department Shaikh zayed hospital Lahore. Sixty patients from both sexes,

underwent standard PCNL, and compare with similar number of the patients

whom we performed tubeless PCNL from Aug 2007 to march 2008. Patients

with multiple puncture site, residual stones, and bleeding were excluded from this

study.

Results; We compare both groups. The need for analgesia, inj pethadine

sulphate for group I, patients was 400mg while for group II patients, it was just

100 mg. Leakage from the nephrostomy site occurred in 08 patients while in

group II, there was no leakage. 03 patients suffer from urinoma formation in

group I, while in group II only 01 patient develops urinoma. As for as the

hospitalization is concerned, patients in group I had an average of 5.5 days

hospital stay, while it is 03 days for group II patients.

Conclusion; Tubeless PCNL is a safe, effective, with very little morbidity. It is

very well accepted by the patients. It is excellent procedure in experience hands.

2

Original Article

Is tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is really worthwhile ??

To get rid of stone from the kidneys is really a gigantic task, both for treating

physician and the patient. It involves a lot of effort on both sides, and really it is

confusing for the patient to follow the modalities for stone treatment. Because

there is advantage of one procedure over the other and there is definitely edge

on following one modality over the other.

Apart from the decade old procedures like pyelolithotomy, nephrolithotomy, new

modalities, like percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), extracorporeal

shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) are on strong footing in getting rid of stone burden

from the kidney.

For large stones percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), is emerging as the

treatment of choice, when considering morbidity and hospital stay of the patients.

As standard PCNL, tubeless PCNL, total tubeless and PCNL in supine position

are different modalities of PCNL, one having edge over the other.

Objective

To compare standard and tubeless PCNL in our patients in term of need for

analgesia, urinary leakage from nephrostomy site, hospital stay and urinoma

formation.

3

Material and methods

60 consecutive cases performed from August 2007 to 30th march 2008, who

underwent tubeless PCNL and assigned them Group II. The stone burden,

number, location of the stone, or renal function was not considered. A similar

number of patients who were assigned Group I, underwent , standard PCNL.

Inclusion criteria in our study were, complete clearance of stone, up to 02

puncture sites. Exclusion criteria was, more than 02 tract, residual stones, and

significant bleeding

In standard PCNL, we undergone

Preoperative preparation includes, complete blood examination, urine complete

examination, serum cretanin, urine for culture sensitivity , PT, APTT was

performed. All patients underwent IVU and ultrasonography, those who had

abnormal renal function, underwent isotope renal scan. Patients who had

deranged liver function, with disturbed PT and APTT were excluded from this

procedure. PCNL was performed under general anesthesia, preoperative

antibiotic Cefotaxime sodium 1 gm was administered. An open ended 6Fr uretral

catheter was passed on guide wire and secured to a foley’s catheter. Uretral

catheter allows the injection of contrast material or air to opacify and distends the

collecting system, further more the catheter will prevent fragment from falling into

the ureter.

Once the catheter is inserted the patient is placed in a prone position, the

percutaneous puncture placed in post axillary’s line into appropriate calyx, under

4

fluoroscopic guidance. Once the puncture needle reaches the calyx, the stylet is

removed and a 0.035 inch floppy J tipped guide wire inserted into needle, then

needle removed and 1 cm incision made at wire site. Sequential dilatation up to

28 Fr, with metal dilators was done, followed by placement of the amplatz

sheath . through which 26fr, rigid nephroscope (karl storz™ ) was passed.

Either the stone extracted straightway or following disintegration by pneumatic

lithoclast (karl storz™). To reduce the number of residual fragments continuous

removal of small fragments by suction or extraction is performed. Large stone

fragments were removed by grasping forcep. At the end of the procedure, a 20Fr

nephrostomy tube was left in situ in group I, ( patients who underwent standard

PCNL). We use, Foley catheter 22Fr with balloon channel arm amputated. But in

group II, whom underwent tubeless PCNL, the nephrostomy tube was not placed,

instead the wound was closed with silk 2/0. after sure on fluoroscope, that there

was no residual stone.

The ureteric catheter was removed with in 24 hour, while PCN tube was kept for

48 hours in group I, in group II, the ureteric catheter was left for 48 hour.

Patients were followed in out door clinic regularly every 03 month, with plain X

ray KUB, ultrasound, and urine C/E., till the patient was declared either stone

free, or with insignificant residual fragments.

Results

a comparison was made regarding need for analgesia, leakage from the

nephrostomy site and urinoma formation.

5

the need for analgesia, inj pethadine for group I, in these patients was, 400mg

while for group II patients, it was just 100 mg. Leakage from the nephrostomy

site occurred in 08 patients while in group II, there was no leakage. 03 patients

suffer from urinoma formation in group I, while in group II only 01 patient

develops urinoma. As for as the hospitalization is concerned, patients in group I

had an average of 5.5 days hospital stay, while it is 3 days for group II patients.

Patient Morbidity Standard PCNL (n-60) Tubeless PCNL (n-60)

Need for analgesia 400mg of inj Pethadine 100mg inj Pethadine

Hospitalization 5.5 days, Post Op 03 days Post Op

Leakage from the

nephrostomy site

08 Pt (4.8%) Nil

Urinoma 03 Pt (5%) 01 Pt (1.66%)

Discussion.

In a standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, the ureteric stent, or double J,

stent, are left in along with nephrostomy tube at the end of procedure. In tubeless

PCNL, only the ureteric stent was left in place, while nephrostomy tube was

omitted. Nephrostomy tube is kept to keep the system open, and let it drain for

48 hour in standard PCNL, while ureteric stent is kept for only 24 hour in most of

the cases. We kept the ureteric stent for 48 hour in tubeless PCNL, and

6

compare there results. Our results were very encouraging, in tubeless PCNL.

Average hospital stay In our study was 03 days. In a larger study the hospital

stay were 2.5 to 3.63 days 3,4,9. In those institutions, where they are using JJ

stent, it is reduced to 24-26 hours 5,4,8. In our patients the time is a few hours

more than other studies, the reason is that we keep the ureteric stent for 48h, we

remove the stent before discharging the patient, as our patients are from far flung

areas, so they opted to stay for a day in hospital after removal of all the stents.

Other alike studies keep the JJ stent, for a few weeks, a similar study by Agrawal

et al4, compared standard and tubeless PCNL, used the JJ stent instead of

ureteric catheter there results show hospital stay for standard PCNL 54.2 +/-

5hours, while for tubeless PCNL it is 21.8 +/- 3.9 hours. Rana et al10, kept the

ureteric stent for 16-20hour, and discharged the patient immediately after

removing the stent, they have average hospital stay of 16-20 hour, which Is much

less than our study.

There is marked difference for the analgesia requirement between both groups,

in our study, there is 400 mg of inj Pethadine sulphate was required for the

group I while for group II it was 100 mg, which is similar to many studies in

which analgesic requirement between both groups vary in the ratio of 2:1, to

3.5:12,6. There is wide variation in analgesic requirement between both groups in

different studies, it is due to the length of stay of nephrostomy tube, size, and

type of nephrostomy tube.

7

Leakage from the nephrostomy site in group I patient in our study was 4.8%,

while for group II it was nil, which is similar to other studies4,5. The urinoma

formation in our study in group I was 5%, while for group II it was 1.66%, which is

significantly less. Other studies, also give similar results3,7.

Conclusion

Tubeless PCNL is an effective and safe procedure, with much less morbidity,3, 4,

5,7. It is safe and effective even in patients with a solitary kidney, in patients where

multiple tract are made and in with supracostal access,5. We recommend this

modality, following sufficient experience with standard PCNL procedure.

References

1. Candela J, Davidoff R, Gerspach J, Bellman GC; “Tubeless”

Percutaneous surgery: a new advance in the technique 0f percutaneous

renal surgery;tech Urol 1997 Spring: 3(1):6-11.

2. Bellman GC, Davidoff R, Candela J, Kurtz S, Stout L; Tubeless

percutaneous renal surgery; J Urol 1997 May; 157(5): 1578-82.

3. Karami H, Jabbari M, Arbab AH: Tubeless Percutaneous nephrolithotomy:

5 year experience in 201 patients; J Endourol 2007 Dec; 21(12): 1411-3.

8

4. Agrawal MS, Agrawal M, gupta A, Bansal S, Yadav A, Goyal J; A

randomized comparison of tubeless and standard percutaneous

nephrolithotomy: J endourol, 2008 Mar;22(3): 439-42.

5. 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 Oct; 96(6):879-83.

6. Mandhani A, Goya R, Vijjan V, Dubey D, Kapoor R; Tubeless

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy-should a stent be an integral part?: J urol.

2007 sep; 178(3pt 1):921-4. Epub 2007 Jul 16.

7. Mouracade P, Spie R, Lang H, Jacqmin D, Saussine C; Tubeless

percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a series of 37 cases. Prog Urol, 2007

Nov;17(7):1351-4.

8. Limb J, Bellman GC: Tubeless Percutaneous renal surgery: review of first

112 patients; Urology 2002 April;59(4);527-31;discussion 531.

9. Lejanapiwat B, Soonthornphan S, Wudhikarn S; Tubeless percutaneous

nephrolithotomy in selected patients; J Endourol 2001 Sep;15(7):711-3.

10.Rana AM, Mithani S; Tubeless Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: call of the

day; J eEndourol; 2007 feb;21(2): 169-72.

9

riginal Paper

Treatment modalities and outcome for Ureterovaginal fistula inflicted in obstetrical and gynaecological practice

List of the contributors 

Dr Ghazi Khan  FCP

      Registrar Urology dept  

      Shaikh Zayed Hospital Lahore 

Dr Farah Yousaf

 

      ex Associate Prof Gynae Obstetrics 

      Post graduate Medical Institute Lahore 

Dr Muhammad Muzammil Tahir

 

      Asisstant Professor Urology 

      Shaikh Zayed Hospital Lahore 

Prof Dr Sajjad Husain

 

      Prof of Urology/Principle 

      Punjab Post Graduate Medical Institute Lahore  

  

10

             

Original Paper

Treatment modalities and outcome for Ureterovaginal fistula inflicted in obstetrical and gynaecological practice

Abstract

Objectives; To find out optimal procedure of repair of uretervaginal fistula and there outcome in gynaecology and obstetric practice. 

Material and Methods; In this study 18 patients with diagnosis of ureterovaginal fistula secondary to gynaecology or obstetric procedure were included. All the patients were admitted and detailed history, physical examination and investigation were done. Ivu, in all patients, and in certain inconclusive patients,  retrograde pyelography was performed, method opted for surgery was decided on these investigation basis. We passed only JJ stent in 03 patients, 10 underwent ureteric implantation, and remaining 03 boari flap with psoas hitch.

Results; Ureteric implantation was done in 10 Patients, success was 100%, Boari  flap with psoas hitch in 05 patients, with 80% success, only JJ stent was performed in 03 patients with 100% outcome.

Conclusion; Always try to treat the patients conservatively in ureteric injury, with stenting if possible,  patients with conservative management, along with ureteric implantation group   have good results, while in those with adjuvant maneuver like Boari flap have fair success rate, in experienced hands.       

11

   

Treatment modalities and outcome for Ureterovaginal fistula inflicted in obstetrical and gynaecological practice 

Introduction;

The close anatomical relationship between the urinary tract and internal genital organs predisposes the distal ureter to iatrogenic injury during pelvic and gynaecological surgery. The incidence of ureteric injury during hysterectomy for benign disease is 1:500 cases, which rises to 1% in cases of malignancy. The risk of ureteric injury is higher during abdominal compared to vaginal hysterectomies. Repeat caesarean sections and postpartum hysterectomies are also associated with increased risk of injury to the lower urinary tract. Most of the uterine injuries occur at the lower one third of the ureter5. 

Aims & Objectives 

      To find out optimal procedure of repair of Ureterovaginal fistula in gynaecology and obstetric practice. 

Material and methods

Descriptive hospital based clinical study, conducted at the department of Urology Mayo Hospital Lahore from November 2002 to October 2003. and department of gynae obstetrics Lahore General hospital from May 2005 to Nov 2006. 18 patients with diagnosis of ureterovaginal fistulae secondary to obstetrics or gynaecological procedures without any previous attempt of repair were included in this study, Patients having urinary fistulae with previous attempt of repair, fistula secondary to radiotherapy, malignancy, fistula due to surgery other than obstetric and surgery, gunshot, road traffic accident or stab injury were excluded from study.

      All the patients were admitted. A detailed history of the patients regarding mode of gynecological or obstetrical procedure was obtained. History of surgery, cause, type of injury was taken.  Duration between the infliction of injury and development of symptoms was recorded. This was followed by thorough clinical examination including general physical examination, systemic and pelvic examination. In the pelvic examination both per vaginal examination and speculum examination were performed and the findings were recorded. In addition to routine investigations, ultrasonography and intravenous urography

12

was done to evaluate the upper tract, status of bladder, ureter and any leakage. In patients where intravenous urography was  inadequate to demonstrates ureteral anatomy then retrograde pyelography was performed.  

   Patients with ureterovaginal fistulae double J stent was tried to pass at the initial stage. Where we were unable to pass the  ureteric stent, the distance between the ureteric orifice and the site of injury were noted. On the basis of these findings the decision, regarding mode of procedure was made,  where the distance was 2-3 cm we  go for ureteric reimplantation with double J stent, Boari flap with Psoas hitch and double J stent was performed for distance more than 4-5 cm. For suturing vicryl 4/0 was used for end to end ureteric anastomosis over JJ stent. JJ stent was removed on 6th post operative week. Patients were assessed for outcome.  

   Results

Table 1 Different surgical approaches adopted in repair of UVF (n=18)

 

Surgical Procedure No. of patients %age

Ureteric Reimplantation 10 55.55%

Boari's flap 2 11.11%

JJ stent 3 16.66%

Ureteric reimplantation with psoas hitch 3 16.66%

 

      Out of 18 patients of UVF  ureteric catheter was passed in 3 patients with a little resistence felt between 2-4 cm and this catheter was replaced with JJ stent. Post operative x-ray kidney, ureter and bladder (KUB) were performed to see the position of the JJ. In 10 patients ureteric catheter was not passed beyond 2-3 cm and ascending pyelogram shows, stricture 2-3 cm away from ureterovesical junction, so ureteric reimplantation was done. In 5 patients ureteric catheter failed to go beyond 4-6 cm and in these patients surgical repair with Boari's flap was performed.  

      In  UVF patients , whom underwent ureteric reimplantation all were successful. Out of 5 patients in which Boari's flap was made, four patients recovered and one was a failure. The JJ stent was passed in 3 patients and they remained dry. Stent was removed in these patients after 6 weeks, ascending pyelogram shows no residual stricture. The JJ stents were used in all patients in which repair of UVF was done. These patients were discharged from the hospital

13

with JJ stents and they were called after six weeks for removel of JJ stent. The average hospital stay of the patients after different procedures for the UVF was 4.66 days.       

Table 2, Success Rate in UVF Repair (n=18) 

Procedure No. of pt.

Success rate

Percantage

Ureteric Reimplantation 10 10 100%

Boari's Flap  2 1 50%

JJ Stent 3 3 100%

Ureteric reimplantation with psoas hitch

3 3 100%

Total 18 17 87.50%

  

      Discussion 

      Ureter is the most commonly injured organ after urinary bladder, during gynecological and obstetrical surgery1. Mostly injury occurs at the lower third of ureter5. There are three places, where ureter is very close to the vagina, (1) the distal ureter just lateral to vagina where the uterine artry crosses ventral over the ureter to enter the uterus, (2) over the pelvic brim where the ovarian vessels crosses the ureters in the infunfibulo pelvic ligament, (3) at the angle of vaginal fornix.  True incidence of ureteral injury is unknown, however results from various studies suggest a ranges from of 0.02 to 2.5%.1,2,3 The most common cause of ureteric injury was abdominal hysterectomy 4,7. The risk of ureteric injury is higher after Laproscopic hysterectomy compared with traditional hysterectomy13. We performed intravenous urography (IVU) to see the site of injury followed by cystoscopy to exclude the possible vesical injury and retrograde ureterography to see the site and nature of injury. This is standard procedure  recommended in many studies14.

14

      The uretrovaginal fistulae may be treated with internal stents, end to end anastamosis of ureter if the distance is short, ureteric reimplantation with JJ stenting, ureteric reimplantation with psoas hitch or Boeri flap 6. If damage is extensive and involving the distal ureter and gap is more, it is difficult to mobilize the ureter sufficiently to anastamose it without tension then Psoas hitch,  Boari flap or combined procedure are the treatment  of choice. We performed ureteric reimplantation in 10 patients with good results, managed with just JJ stent, in 3 patients with good success, in 3 patients we performed ureteric implantation (submucosal tunnel) with psoas hitch, with 100% success rate while 02 patients underwent boeri flap with JJ stent, with success rate of 50%. The success in  these patients depends on many factors, included,  following surgical principles, infection free and most importantly experience of the surgeon.

      The overall success rate in present study is  87.50% for uretrovaginal fistulae where as international data shows that in developed countries the success rate for ureterovaginal fistulae ranges from 93.9 to 95% after first attempt9,11. No technique is considered superior to the other. The optimal approach is that works best in the surgeons' hand. The route of approach is also best tailored to the individual patient. 

       The use of interposition graft is likely to contribute towards better outcome as international studies in which these grafts were used showed better out come.

      In all the patients JJ stents were used for splinting the ureteric  repair. It prevent the post operative urinary leakage, and reduces the postoperative morbidity10, however controversies exist in the use of JJ stent, in uncomplicated cases. In survey of American urological association of 1453 cases, about 75% used splints for ureteric repairs  the consensus view is that, there use do a lot of good than to harm the patient 12. we use only jj stent to manage these patients conservatively, with good result. 

Conclusion; 

Intra operative identification of ureteric injuries is a rare feature, The iatrogenic  ureteric injury is inevitable, due to close proximity of the ureter to the internal genital organ. Outcome depends on the site, size, location of the injury, and expertise of the surgeon. So prompt diagnosis, appropriate surgical repair, better endourological techniques, along with experience of the surgeon, is the

15

associated with better outcome.    

References 

1. Goodno JA Jr, Power-TW, Harris VD; Ureteral injury in gynaecologic surgery: a ten year review in a community hospital. Am J obstet-gynaecol-1995, june(6):1817-20, discussion 1820-22.

 2. dark Mj, Nobble-JG: ureteric trauma in gynaecologic surgery. Int

Urogynaecol-J-Pelvic Floor -Dysfunct 1998, 9(2):108-17.

 

3. Nawaz FA, Khan ZE, Rizvi J: Urinary tract injuries during obstetrics and gynaecological surgical procedures at the Agha khan university hospital Karachi, Pakistan: a 20 year review;Urol int.2007;78(2):106-11.    

4. Smith GL, William G.Vesicovaginal fistula. BJU int. 1999; 83(5):

   564-70.

5. Selzmann-AA, Spirnak-JP: Iatrogenic ureteral injury, a 20 year experience in treating 165 injuries; J Urol 1996, Mar 155(3) 878-81.

6. Iqbal M, Tahir MM, Parveen N, Akhtar MJ, Yousaf F, Niazi MA.Management of Ureteric injuries due to gynecological procedures. ANN. KEMC 2000; 6: 323-5.

.7. Mteta KA, Mbwambo J, Mvungi M; Iatrogenic ureteric and bladder injuries in obtetrics and gynaecologic surgeries; East Afr Med J, 2006 Feb;83(2):79-85. 

8. Turk SK, Muneer L. Memon AS. Ttreatment of gynaeclological and obstetric injuries. J Surg. Pak. 1999; 4(1):31-4.

9. Sanchez-Merino JM, Guillan-Maquieira C, Parra-Muntaner L, Gonez-Cisneros SC, Laguna-Pes MP, Gracia-Alonso J. Transvesical repair of non complicated vesicoveginal fistulae. Actas Urol Esp 2000; 24: 185-9.

10. Cormio L; Ureteric injuries, clinical and experimental studies; Scand-J-Urol-Nephrol-Supp;1955;171:1-66

16

11. Al-Awadi K, Kehinde EO, Al-Hunayan A, Al-Khayat A; Iatrogenic ureteric injuries: incidence, aetiological factors and the effect of early management on subsequent outcome:Int Urol Nephrol, 2005;37(2):235-41.

12. Turner MD, Witherington R, Carswell JJ, Ureteric splinting, Result of a survey. J Urology 1982, 127:654-656.

13.Harkki-Siren-P, Sjoberg-J, Titinen-A, Urinary tract injuries after hysterectomy. OBSTET-GYNECOL.1998.Jul:92(1) 113-8.

14. WU-K, WU2, HAN-Z; Diagnosis and treatment of iatrogenic urinary injury.Chung-Hua-Wai-Ko-Tsa-Chih 1996; Dec.34(12) 720-2. 

763399839

17