Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of the tubeless approach with a ureteral stent versus nephrostomy tube for postoperative drainage following percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and to provide guidance for clinical practice. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from PubMed (1966 to August 2008), Ovid (1966 to August 2008), Embase (1966 to August 2008), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2008) and CBM (1978 to 2008). We also handsearched for relevant published and unpublished reports and check their references. The quality of the included trials was evaluated by two reviewers. We used The Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 5.0.16 software for meta-analysis. Results Eight studies involving 507 patients were included. We divided the patients into three groups: small (8~9 Fr), medium (16~18 Fr) and large (20~24 Fr) according to the diameter of nephrostomy tube for the analysis. Our meta-analyses showed: ①Hospital stay (hours): There was no statistically significant difference between tubeless and small bore tubes, but a difference was found in the comparison of tubeless versus medium and large bore tubes [WMD (95%CI) –32.4 (–33.64, –31.16) and –39.07 (–67.75, –10.39), respectively]; ② Puncture site urinary leakage: No statistically significant difference was found between tubeless and small bore tubes, of between tubeless versus medium tubes [RR= 0.07, 95%CI (0.00, 1.15), P=0.06]; ③ Visual analogue scale scores for postoperative pain on Day 1: There was no statistically significant difference between tubeless and small bore tubes, but there was a difference in tubeless versus medium and large bore tubes [MD (95%CI) –2.80 (–2.94, –2.66) and –2.04 (–2.29, –1.79), respectively];④No statistically significant difference was found in transfusion, fever or infection and operating time between tubeless and any size of nephrostomy tube. Conclusion No statistically significant difference between tubeless versus small bore tubes is found for any of the outcome measurements we analysed. Compared with medium and large bore tubes, tubeless PCNL of ureteral stent could reduce hospital stay, urine leakage and postoperative pain without an increase in complications. There is a moderate possibility of selection bias, performance bias and publication bias in this review, because of the small number of the included studies, which weakens the strength of the evidence of our results. Better evidence from more high-quality randomized controlled trials is needed.
ObjectiveTo explore the safety, feasibility and superiority of tubeless video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) in the treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 38 patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax treated in our hospital from February 2017 to July 2018. Tubeless bullectomy was performed in 18 patients, including 11 males and 7 females, aged 14.3±1.5 years. Twenty patients underwent conventional thoracoscopic bullae resection, including 12 males and 8 females, aged 14.5±1.7 years. The clinical effectiveness was compared.ResultsAll the 38 patients completed the operation successfully under the single-port thoracoscopy, without the transfer of intubation and secondary surgery. Operation time (67.3±13.3 min vs. 81.4±13.4 min, P=0.002), preoperative anesthesia time (14.2±2.6 min vs. 18.5±2.6 min, P=0.000), postoperative anesthesia recovery time (17.1±2.6 min vs. 26.5±5.0 min, P=0.000), visual simulation score of postoperative pain (2.3±0.9 vs. 5.2±1.0, P=0.000), postoperative activity time (1.3±0.4 d vs. 2.9±0.6 d, P=0.000), postoperative hospitalization time (2.9±0.8 d vs. 5.6±1.3 d, P=0.000), hospitalization cost (35.0±6.0 kyuan vs. 59.0±10.0 kyuan, P=0.000) were better in the control group. There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss (73.2±4.6 mL vs. 73.9±4.1 mL) and postoperative lung revascularization time (29.3±2.4 h vs. 29.7±2.5 h) between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionCompared with traditional thoracoscopic bullectomy, tubeless VATS technique is safe and reliable in the treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax, with mild pain and quick recovery, in line with the concept of fast track surgery and worthy of clinical promotion.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of the third-generation super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) for the treatment of kidney calculi with diameter of ≤2.5 cm and CT value of ≥700 Hu, and discuss the feasibility of adopting the technology in primary hospitals.MethodsThe clinical data of 64 patients with unilateral kidney calculi (CT value ≥700 Hu, diameter ≤2.5 cm) treated in the People’s Hospital of Leshan Central District between July 2017 and July 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. After random assignment, 30 patients were treated with SMP and 34 were with mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL). The pre-, intra-, and post-operative data were compared and analyzed to evaluate the efficacy and safety.ResultsThe unilateral lesion operations of both groups were successfully completed in the first phase. All patients were given double J tubes after operation, and there were no major complications such as post-operative hemorrhage and sepsis. There was no statistically significant difference in the post-operative hemoglobin decrease, post-operative immediate stone removal rate, post-operative stone removal rate after one month, or the rate of procalcitonin >0.1 μg/L between the two groups (P>0.05). The differences in the lithotripsy time [(29.63±6.28) vs. (25.21±5.19) minutes], post-operative hospital stay [(5.33±0.61) vs. (9.44±0.96) days], rate of indwelling renal fistula (3.3% vs. 50.0%), analgesic demand rate (10.0% vs. 58.8%), and postoperative infectious fever rate (6.7% vs. 26.5%) between SMP group and MPCNL group were statistically significant (P<0.05).ConclusionsSMP has the advantages of less trauma, low systemic inflammatory response syndrome incidence, less pain, quick rehabilitation, short hospital stay, tubeless after surgery, etc. It is worthy of extensive promotion in primary hospitals.