Year : 2016 | Volume
: 8 | Issue : 2 | Page : 208--212
Hemostatic agents for access tract in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Is it worth?
Francisco Sepulveda1, Alfredo Aliaga1, Daniela Fleck1, Mario Fernandez2, Alejandro Mercado1, Roberto Vilches1, Francisco Moya1, Rodrigo Ledezma1, Diego Reyes1, Fernando Marchant1
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
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.
Department of Urology, Hospital Clínico de la Universidad de Chile, Av. Santos Dumont 999, Piso 5 Sector A. Santi ago
|How to cite this article:|
Sepulveda F, Aliaga A, Fleck D, Fernandez M, Mercado A, Vilches R, Moya F, Ledezma R, Reyes D, Marchant F. Hemostatic agents for access tract in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Is it worth?.Urol Ann 2016;8:208-212
|How to cite this URL:|
Sepulveda F, Aliaga A, Fleck D, Fernandez M, Mercado A, Vilches R, Moya F, Ledezma R, Reyes D, Marchant F. Hemostatic agents for access tract in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Is it worth?. Urol Ann [serial online] 2016 [cited 2021 Oct 17 ];8:208-212
Available from: https://www.urologyannals.com/article.asp?issn=0974-7796;year=2016;volume=8;issue=2;spage=208;epage=212;aulast=Sepulveda;type=0