Urology Annals
About UA | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionLogin 
Urology Annals
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 1929   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 208-212

Hemostatic agents for access tract in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Is it worth?


1 Department of Urology, Hospital Clínico de la Universidad de , Universidad de , Santiago, Chile
2 Department of Urology, Clínica Alemana de Santiago, Santiago de , Santiago, Chile

Correspondence Address:
Fernando Marchant
Department of Urology, Hospital Clínico de la Universidad de Chile, Av. Santos Dumont 999, Piso 5 Sector A. Santi ago
Chile
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/0974-7796.163796

PMID: 27141194

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: The role of hemostatic agents as an adjunct for closure of the nephrostomy tract in tubeless percutaneous surgery (tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy [tPNL]) has been previously evaluated, observing a potential benefit in terms of reduced bleeding and urinary leakage. We assessed the rate of postoperative complications after the use of hemostatic agents for sealing the nephrostomy tract in patients undergoing tPNL at our institution. Subjects and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 52 consecutive patients undergoing tPNL at our center between January 2010 and December 2013. No substance was placed within the tract in 25 patients (Group 1). A cylinder of Surgicel® in addition to 1 unit of Gelita® were placed within the access tract in 27 patients (Group 2). We accounted for demographic variables, stone size, operative time, postoperative pain, development of hematoma, postoperative hematocrit drop, urinary leakage, residual lithiasis, and hospital stay length. Results: Age and sex differed significantly between the two groups (P = 0.0002 and P = 0.048 respectively). However, there were no significant differences in terms of body mass index and stone burden. No significant differences between groups were found with regards to operative time, postoperative hematocrit drop, postoperative pain and presence of residual lithiasis. Conclusion: The use of Gelita® and Surgicel® as hemostatic agents in tPNL is safe, but we were not able to demonstrate any significant benefit in terms of postoperative morbidity after comparing the use of these agents in tPNL. We concluded that the uses of hemostatic agents needed to be evaluated in prospective randomized trials to define its benefits.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1781    
    Printed36    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded253    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal