التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
288: Wide bore tube, small bore tube, no tube following PNL: Which one is better? |
| المؤلفون: |
Mete, Uttam, Chalokia, Ramandeep Singh, Singh, S. K., Kumar, Santosh, Aggarwal, M. M., Mandal, A. K. |
| المصدر: |
Indian Journal of Urology; Supplement2, Vol. 24, pS143-S143, 1/4p |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
LITHOTOMY, KIDNEY stones, NEPHROSTOMY, SURGICAL drainage, SURGICAL stents, URINARY organ surgery complications, RANDOMIZED controlled trials |
| مصطلحات جغرافية: |
INDIA |
| مستخلص: |
Introduction: To elucidate any differences in postoperative outcome among patients undergoing PNL with 3 different methods of drainage of pelvicalyceal system. Methods: 30 patients were randomized into wide bore nephrostomy (18 Fr. - Group-I), small bore nephrostomy (9 Fr. tube - Group-II) and tubeless PNL (4.8 Fr. DJ stent - Group-III), (n = 10 each) after achieving complete radiological clearance with single access tract. Postoperative analgesic requirements, visual analog pain score, duration of urinary leakage, fall in haemoglobin, hospital stay and postoperative abdominal ultrasonography were recorded Results: The age of the patient, stone burden, operative time, percentage decline in hemoglobin,duration of hospital stay and perinephric collection on ultrasound were comparable among the three groups. The mean pain score at postoperative day 0, 1 and 2 was significantly higher in Group-I. On day 2 VAS score was 2.8 ± 2.44 in Gr. I, 2.6 ± 1.66 in Gr. II, 1.1 ± 1.66 in Gr. III, (P= 0.84 I vs II, P= 0.08 I vs III, P=0.10 II vs III). Diclofenac requirement was also high in Group-I, although not statistically significant( 182.5± 106.75, 145±66.45, 140±89.9 in gr. I,II &III respectively). Urine leakage was more in Group-I & II. Conclusions: Wide bore nephrostomy tube gives more postoperative discomfort compared to other two procedures. Tubeless procedures involve costly stent and stent related problems.Therefore, small bore nephrostomy tube is the best option among select group of Indian patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Indian Journal of Urology is the property of Wolters Kluwer India Pvt Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Complementary Index |
Full Text Finder