ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2024
Complications of tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Safety and efficacy of standard vs. tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric populations: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC urology · 2025Pooled it
- Safety and feasibility of tubeless PCNL without urinary catheter or retrograde intubation under paravertebral block.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Outcomes and Complications of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL): A Single-Center Experience.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe necessity of nephrostomy tube after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been called into question in modern series. We sought to examine differences in postoperative complications and outcomes of tubeless PCNL versus standard PCNL at our institution.
methodsA retrospective review of our institutional stone database was conducted from January 2016 to December 2021 for patients who had undergone either tubeless PCNL, defined by placement of only an internal ureteral stent, or standard PCNL, which involved placement of an externalized nephrostomy tube. Patients were excluded if they underwent totally tubeless PCNL.
resultsA total of 438 patients were included for analysis: 329 patients underwent tubeless PCNL and 109 patients underwent standard PCNL. Between tubeless and standard groups, there was no difference in readmission rates 6.1% vs. 9.2% (p = 0.268), Clavien 2 or > complications 18.5% vs. 19.3% (p = 0.923), and Clavien 3 or > complications 4.0% vs. 7.3% (p = 0.151). The tubeless group experienced shorter operative duration 121.5 vs. 144.8 min (p = 0.012), shorter length of stay 2.5 vs. 3.8 days (p = 0.002), and higher stone-free rates 72.3% vs. 60.2% (p = 0.014), but also increased blood transfusion rates 6.4% vs. 0.9% (p = 0.022).
conclusionIn comparing tubeless with standard PCNL, there was no difference in readmission rates, or significant Clavien complication rates. Patients undergoing tubeless PCNL experienced higher stone-free rates, but more number of patients required postoperative blood transfusion. The decision to leave a nephrostomy tube after PCNL appears unlikely to impact overall complication rates and can be left to surgeon experience and case-based discretion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37668868What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.