Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Day-surgery percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a high-volume center retrospective experience

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Letter To The Editor to this article was published on 11 November 2019

Abstract

Purpose

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is traditionally performed on an inpatient basis. We determine the safety and outcome of day-surgery PCNL by experienced surgeon hands.

Patients and methods

A protocol for day-surgery PCNL was undertaken. A retrospective analysis of all 86 cases of planned day-surgery PCNL accomplished by an experienced surgeon who followed this protocol between May 2017 and March 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, operative data, complications, and readmission rates were recorded. Day-surgery PCNL was defined as discharge of patients either the same day or within 24 h after surgery.

Results

The average stone burden was 361.1 mm2 and 70 (81.4%) of patients had multiple stones or staghorn stones. 82 (95.4%) patients achieved same-day discharge or received overnight observation prior to discharge, and 4 patients (4.6%) required full admission (longer than 24 h). The readmission rate was 2.3% (2 patients). The postoperative complications occurred in 10 (11.6%) patients, including 7, 2, 2 of grade I, II, III complications. The average operation time was 64 min and the hemoglobin drop was 15.7 ± 16.9 g/L. The established tracts size ranged from 16 to 22Fr. The stone clearance rate was 90.7%. The tubeless without nephrostomy tube was performed in 60.5%. Eight cases were performed by multiple-tracts PCNL with 2–4 tracts, with only two case required full admission.

Conclusion

Experienced surgeons who performed day-surgery PCNL experience excellent patient outcomes in appropriately selected patients. Most complications can be treated conservatively and only a few required intervention or readmission.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zeng G, Mai Z, Xia S et al (2017) Prevalence of kidney stones in China: an ultrasonography based cross-sectional study. BJU Int 120:109–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fernström I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10:257–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ghani KR, Andonian S, Bultitude M et al (2016) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: update, trends, and future directions. Eur Urol 70:382–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zeng G, Wan S, Zhao Z et al (2016) Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP): a new concept in technique and instrumentation. BJU Int 117:655–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nguyen D-D, Luo JW, Tailly T et al (2019) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy access: a systematic review of intraoperative assistive technologies. J Endourol 3(5):358–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Seitz C, Desai M, Häcker A et al (2012) Incidence, prevention, and management of complications following percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Eur Urol 61:146–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Alyami F, Norman RW (2012) Is an overnight stay after percutaneous nephrolithotomy safe? Arab J Urol 10:367–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Beiko D, Lee L (2010) Outpatient tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the initial case series. Can Urol Assoc J 4:E86–E90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bechis SK, Han DS, Abbott JE et al (2018) Outpatient percutaneous nephrolithotomy: the UC San Diego health experience. J Endourol 32:394–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones P, Bennett G, Dosis A, et al (2018) Safety and efficacy of day-case percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review from european society of uro-technology. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.04.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Singh I, Kumar A, Kumar P (2005) “Ambulatory PCNL” (tubeless PCNL under regional anesthesia)—a preliminary report of 10 cases. Int Urol Nephrol 37:35–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wu H, Wang Z, Zhu S et al (2018) Uroseptic shock can be reversed by early intervention based on leukocyte count 2 h post-operation: animal model and multicenter clinical cohort study. Inflammation 41:1835–1841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhu W, Li J, Yuan J et al (2017) A prospective and randomised trial comparing fluoroscopic, total ultrasonographic, and combined guidance for renal access in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. BJU Int 119:612–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schoenfeld D, Zhou T, Stern JM (2019) Outcomes for patients undergoing ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 33:189–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. El-Nahas AR, Elshal AM, El-Tabey NA et al (2016) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones: a randomised trial comparing high-power holmium laser versus ultrasonic lithotripsy. BJU Int 118:307–312

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Opondo D, Tefekli A, Esen T et al (2012) Impact of case volumes on the outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 62:1181–1187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Huang W-Y, Wu S-C, Chen Y-F et al (2014) Surgeon volume for percutaneous nephrolithotomy is associated with medical costs and length of hospital stay: a nationwide population-based study in Taiwan. J Endourol 28:915–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tepeler A, Karatag T, Tok A et al (2016) Factors affecting hospital readmission and rehospitalization following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 34:69–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kreydin EI, Eisner BH (2013) Risk factors for sepsis after percutaneous renal stone surgery. Nat Rev Urol 10:598–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zheng J, Li Q, Fu W et al (2015) Procalcitonin as an early diagnostic and monitoring tool in urosepsis following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urolithiasis 43:41–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Coley KC, Williams BA, DaPos SV et al (2002) Retrospective evaluation of unanticipated admissions and readmissions after same day surgery and associated costs. J Clin Anesth 14:349–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81600542). Additional funding was provided by Guangzhou Science Technology and Innovation Commission (Nos. 201604020001 and 201704020193). The project of Health and Family planning Commission of Guangzhou Municipality(No. 20181A010051).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Guohua Zeng & Yongda Liu

    Present address: Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Kangda Road 1#, Haizhu District, Guangzhou, 510230, Guangdong, China

  2. Xiangkun Wu and Zhijian Zhao contribute equally to this work as the co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Kangda Road 1#, Haizhu District, Guangzhou, 510230, Guangdong, China

    Xiangkun Wu, Zhijian Zhao, Hongling Sun, Chao Cai, Zhilin Li, Donglong Cheng & Huacai Zhu

  2. Guangzhou Institute of Urology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Xiangkun Wu, Zhijian Zhao, Hongling Sun, Chao Cai, Zhilin Li, Donglong Cheng, Huacai Zhu, Guohua Zeng & Yongda Liu

  3. Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Xiangkun Wu, Zhijian Zhao, Hongling Sun, Chao Cai, Zhilin Li, Donglong Cheng, Huacai Zhu, Guohua Zeng & Yongda Liu

Authors
  1. Xiangkun Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhijian Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hongling Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chao Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhilin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Donglong Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Huacai Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Guohua Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yongda Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YL had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: GZ, YL. Acquisition of data: XW, ZZ, HS, ZL, HZ, DC, CC. Analysis and interpretation of data: XW, ZZ. Drafting of the manuscript: ZZ, XW. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: ZZ, YL. Statistical analysis: XW. Supervision: GZ, YL. Other: none.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Guohua Zeng or Yongda Liu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Financial disclosures

Yongda Liu certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (e.g., employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: None.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, X., Zhao, Z., Sun, H. et al. Day-surgery percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a high-volume center retrospective experience. World J Urol 38, 1323–1328 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02942-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02942-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation