{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,30]],"date-time":"2026-04-30T22:34:32Z","timestamp":1777588472865,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":17,"publisher":"SAGE Publications","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2015,4,1]],"date-time":"2015-04-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1427846400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/page\/policies\/text-and-data-mining-license"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["journals.sagepub.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Journal of Endourology"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2015,4]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background and Purpose:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has gained popularity in an attempt to decrease morbidity and accelerate discharge. Recently, ambulatory tubeless PCNL has been reported. There are no data, however, regarding readmission rates of patients who had ambulatory PCNL. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess rates of emergency department (ED) visits and readmissions postambulatory PCNL.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Patients and Methods:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>A retrospective chart review of all ambulatory PCNL cases at two institutions between March 2007 and December 2013 was performed. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected including the amount of narcotics used, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, returns to the ED, and readmissions.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Fifty patients underwent ambulatory PCNL, including two bilateral cases, making up a total of 52 renal units. All patients were discharged home on the same day with a mean hospital stay of 208.32\u00b173.43 minutes. The mean narcotic requirement was 41.13\u00b146.76\u2009mg of oral morphine equivalents. Six patients (12%) returned to the ED, all within 7 days. Four of these 6 patients were discharged; three with stent colic and one with wound cellulitis. Only two (4%) patients were readmitted\u2014one with multiresistant\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">Escherichia coli<\/jats:italic>\n                      and one with uncomplicated stent colic. Overall stone-free rate was 90.4%. There were no major complications, while low grade (I-II) Clavien complications developed in 9 (18%) patients.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Ambulatory PCNL is safe in highly selected patients with a stone-free rate of 90% and readmission rate of 4%. Prospective studies comparing standard PCNL with ambulatory PCNL are warranted.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2014.0584","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2014,9,15]],"date-time":"2014-09-15T11:40:42Z","timestamp":1410781242000},"page":"410-414","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/sage-journals-update-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":36,"title":["Ambulatory Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: What Is the Rate of Readmission?"],"prefix":"10.1177","volume":"29","author":[{"given":"Darren","family":"Beiko","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Queen's University","place":["Canada"]}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Mohamed A.","family":"Elkoushy","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"McGill University","place":["Canada"]},{"name":"Suez Canal University","place":["Egypt"]}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Andrea","family":"Kokorovic","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Queen's University","place":["Canada"]}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Gregory","family":"Roberts","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Queen's University","place":["Canada"]}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Sylvia","family":"Robb","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Queen's University","place":["Canada"]}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Sero","family":"Andonian","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"McGill University","place":["Canada"]}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"179","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2015,4,1]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1080\/21681805.1976.11882084"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_3_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.ju.0000130752.97414.c8"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_4_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(01)64799-2"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_5_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s11934-013-0310-4"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_6_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2008.04.020"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_7_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00240-013-0565-8"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_8_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1159\/000336145"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_9_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1464-410X.2011.10463.x"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_10_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.urology.2010.08.001"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_11_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.5489\/cuaj.886"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_12_2","first-page":"A168","article-title":"Outpatient percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A comparative analysis with laparoscopic cholecystectomy","volume":"26","author":"Abbott JE","year":"2012","unstructured":"Abbott JE, , Deem SG, , Simpson EE, , Davalos JG. Outpatient percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A comparative analysis with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Endourol, 2012; 26(suppl):A168\u2013A169.","journal-title":"J Endourol"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_13_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_14_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eururo.2012.03.055"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_15_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(17)44867-1"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_16_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2010.0424"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_17_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2011.0504"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_18_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2011.0055"}],"container-title":["Journal of Endourology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1089\/end.2014.0584","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1089\/end.2014.0584","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1089\/end.2014.0584","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,28]],"date-time":"2026-04-28T20:14:18Z","timestamp":1777407258000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1089\/end.2014.0584"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2015,4]]},"references-count":17,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2015,4]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1089\/end.2014.0584"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1089\/end.2014.0584","relation":{},"ISSN":["0892-7790","1557-900X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0892-7790","type":"print"},{"value":"1557-900X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2015,4]]}}}