Circle nephrostomy tube revisited
Introduction: There are few options for patients requiring chronic urinary drainage using nephrostomy tubes. Although circle nephrostomy tube (CNT) was invented in 1954, it is rarely used. Its advantages include longer indwelling time such that it is changed semi-annually when compared with the standard nephrostomy tube (SNT), which is changed monthly. However, there are no studies comparing indwelling times and costs with these two tubes. The aim of the present study was to compare CNT with SNT in terms of frequency of tube changes, reasons for earlier tube changes, and associated costs.
Methods: Patients who had CNT inserted between 2009 and 2015 were reviewed. The indications for chronic indwelling nephrostomy tubes were tabulated. The frequency of tube changes was compared between CNT and SNT in the same patients. Furthermore, costs associated with insertion and exchange of CNT and SNT were analyzed.
Results: Seven patients with mean age of 71.9 ± 7.6 years (range 43‒96) had a total of 36 CNT changes. The mean number of CNT changes was four (range 2‒5) at a mean interval of 168.3 ± 15.6 days (range 120‒231). All patients had SNT prior to converting to CNT. When compared with the mean interval for SNT changes, the mean interval for CNT changes was significantly longer (44.8 ± 19.4 vs. 168.3 ± 41.3 days; p=0.028). Tube blockage and urinary leakage were the most common reasons for earlier than scheduled CNT changes. In our centre, CNT insertion and exchange cost $1965.48 and $923.96 compared with $1450.43 and $803.81 for SNT, respectively. There was an estimated cost savings of $46 861.10 (range $87 414.30 –$40 553.20) for the whole cohort by switching from SNTs to CNTs.
Conclusions: Despite the small sample size as the main limitation, this study confirms that CNTs are associated with significantly fewer changes and lower cost when compared with SNTs for poorsurgical- risk patients requiring chronic NTs.
How to Cite
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.