Short Communication
Published: 2018-12-15

Hemostatic sealant in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a monocentric experience

Urology and Renal Transplantation Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy
Urology and Renal Transplantation Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy
Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy
Urology and Renal Transplantation Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy
Department of Urology, Henri Mondor Hospital, Créteil, France
Urology and Renal Transplantation Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy Sealant Urolithiasis

Abstract

Background and aims. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy is increasingly been used but the question
remains on the wisdom of using an hemostatic agents to seal the tract and whether this decision should be
based on tract size. We compared the outcome of standard (26-30Fr) tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy
sealed with Tachosil® vs mini (17.5Fr) percutaneous nephrolithotomy with a tract left unsealed.
Methods. We analysed our prospectively maintained Internal Review Board-approved percutaneous nephrolithotomy
database to compare outcomes of patients who had undergone tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy
either sealed or unsealed.
Result. Among 491 eligible patients, 294 had a mini (17.5 Fr) unsealed (Group A) and 197 a standard (26-30
Fr) sealed procedure (Group B). Groups were similar for baseline characteristics but median surgical time was
significantly shorter (60 vs 75 min; p = 0.0004) in unsealed rather than in sealed procedures. There was no
difference in the overall complications rate (44.9 vs 39.1%, p = 0.2); median Hb loss was statistically lower (0.8
vs 1.0; p = 0.028) in unsealed procedures but there was no difference in blood transfusion rate (3.1 vs 3.6%;
p = 0.8). Four patients required embolization, 3 (1%) in unsealed and 1 (0.5%) in sealed procedures; 4 had urinary
leakage from the flank requiring ureteral stenting, 3 (1%) in unsealed and 1 (0.5%) in sealed procedures.
Finally, there was no difference in mean postoperative hospital stay and stone-free rate.
Conclusions. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy were proved to be safe, but elderly patients deserve
more attention. The use of sealants, while not always necessary, may be useful in optimizing results.

Affiliations

M. Auciello

Urology and Renal Transplantation Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy

A. Mangiatordi

Urology and Renal Transplantation Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy

G. Stallone

Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy

G. Carrieri

Urology and Renal Transplantation Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy

A. Hoznek

Department of Urology, Henri Mondor Hospital, Créteil, France

L. Cormio

Urology and Renal Transplantation Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Italy

Copyright

© Società Italiana di Gerontologia e Geriatria (SIGG) , 2018

How to Cite

[1]
Auciello, M., Mangiatordi, A., Stallone, G., Carrieri, G., Hoznek, A. and Cormio, L. 2018. Hemostatic sealant in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a monocentric experience. JOURNAL OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS. 66, 4 (Dec. 2018), 216-221.
  • Abstract viewed - 5 times
  • PDF downloaded - 5 times