Affiliations 

  • 1 W L Chong, FRCS. Institute of Urology, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Jalan Pahang, 50586, Kuala Lumpur
  • 2 S Murali, FRCS. Institute of Urology, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Jalan Pahang, 50586, Kuala Lumpur
  • 3 R M Sahabudin, MS. Institute of Urology, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Jalan Pahang, 50586, Kuala Lumpur
  • 4 A Khairullah, FRCS. Institute of Urology, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Jalan Pahang, 50586, Kuala Lumpur
Med J Malaysia, 2002 Mar;57(1):108-10.
PMID: 14569727

Abstract

Pros and cons of Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) versus Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy (ESWL) have often been highlighted when one discusses on the management of renal stones. An oft quoted point is that PCNL entails a prolonged hospital stay whereas ESWL sessions are day surgical in nature. However, PCNL has superior stone clearance rate as compared to ESWL especially for lower pole stones. In addition, PCNL is more suitable for large bulk stones and when ancillary procedures are required e.g. endopyelotomy. The first 50 cases of successful tubeless PCNL were reported by Bellman et al in 1997. The remarkable recovery of patients in their series encouraged them to employ this technique as their technique of choice for the majority of their cases. A similar technique was employed on endopyelotomy by Liang et al and they concluded that this was a safe, less morbid and effective technique. We report our first case of tubeless PCNL.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.