Outcomes of Elective Ureteroscopy for Ureteric Stones in Patients with Prior Urosepsis and Emergency Drainage: Prospective Study over 5 yr from a Tertiary Endourology Centre.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Drainage
Emergency Treatment
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Nephrostomy, Percutaneous
Prospective Studies
Sepsis
/ etiology
Tertiary Care Centers
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Ureteroscopy
Urinary Calculi
/ complications
Urinary Tract Infections
/ etiology
Young Adult
Nephrostomy
Outcomes
Sepsis
Stent
Stone
Ureteroscopy
Journal
European urology focus
ISSN: 2405-4569
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Focus
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101665661
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 01 2020
15 01 2020
Historique:
received:
14
07
2018
revised:
07
08
2018
accepted:
05
09
2018
pubmed:
17
9
2018
medline:
21
5
2021
entrez:
17
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Elective treatment of ureteric stones is needed after emergency drainage of urosepsis. We wanted to look at the outcomes of elective ureteroscopic stone treatment in patients with prior sepsis and emergency drainage via retrograde ureteric stent (RUS) or percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN). Data of all patients who underwent elective ureteroscopy (URS) for stone disease over 5 yr (March 2012-December 2016) were prospectively collected. Elective URS following previous emergency RUS or PCN. Outcomes were collated for consecutive patients who underwent emergency drainage for urosepsis secondary to stone disease, followed by elective URS. Data was collected regarding patient demographics, stone parameters, and clinical outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 24. In total, 76 patients underwent 82 elective procedures (six underwent bilateral URS) with a male to female ratio of 1:2 and a mean age of 57 yr. Emergency decompression was achieved via RUS in 63 (83%) and PCN in 13 (17%) patients. A positive urine culture on presentation was obtained in 26 (34%) patients, and 27 (36%) patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The mean single and overall stone size was 8.6 (2-23) and 10.8 (2-32) mm, respectively. The mean operating time was 42 (5-129) min with stone-free rate (SFR) of 97% (n=74). There were three (4%) complications in total, of which two patients developed urinary tract infection needing intravenous antibiotics (Clavien II) and a third developed sepsis (Clavien IV) needing ICU admission. There was no difference in ureteroscopic lithotripsy outcomes (operative time, complications, or SFR) on comparing initial RUS or PCN, admission to ICU or ward, positive or negative urine culture result, presence of single or multiple stones, and between American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade of patients. The ASA grade of patients was a significant predictor of day case procedures (p=0.001). Elective URS achieved excellent outcomes in patients who previously presented with obstructing calculi and sepsis needing emergency decompression. Overnight inpatient admission was needed in some patients with a higher ASA grade. In this report, we look at the outcomes of planned ureteroscopy procedures for stone disease in patients with previous urosepsis. These patients with previous emergency drainage for urosepsis had excellent outcomes from their planned ureteroscopic surgery. This information will help in preoperative patient optimisation and counselling.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Elective treatment of ureteric stones is needed after emergency drainage of urosepsis.
OBJECTIVE
We wanted to look at the outcomes of elective ureteroscopic stone treatment in patients with prior sepsis and emergency drainage via retrograde ureteric stent (RUS) or percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN).
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Data of all patients who underwent elective ureteroscopy (URS) for stone disease over 5 yr (March 2012-December 2016) were prospectively collected.
INTERVENTION
Elective URS following previous emergency RUS or PCN.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Outcomes were collated for consecutive patients who underwent emergency drainage for urosepsis secondary to stone disease, followed by elective URS. Data was collected regarding patient demographics, stone parameters, and clinical outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 24.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
In total, 76 patients underwent 82 elective procedures (six underwent bilateral URS) with a male to female ratio of 1:2 and a mean age of 57 yr. Emergency decompression was achieved via RUS in 63 (83%) and PCN in 13 (17%) patients. A positive urine culture on presentation was obtained in 26 (34%) patients, and 27 (36%) patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The mean single and overall stone size was 8.6 (2-23) and 10.8 (2-32) mm, respectively. The mean operating time was 42 (5-129) min with stone-free rate (SFR) of 97% (n=74). There were three (4%) complications in total, of which two patients developed urinary tract infection needing intravenous antibiotics (Clavien II) and a third developed sepsis (Clavien IV) needing ICU admission. There was no difference in ureteroscopic lithotripsy outcomes (operative time, complications, or SFR) on comparing initial RUS or PCN, admission to ICU or ward, positive or negative urine culture result, presence of single or multiple stones, and between American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade of patients. The ASA grade of patients was a significant predictor of day case procedures (p=0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Elective URS achieved excellent outcomes in patients who previously presented with obstructing calculi and sepsis needing emergency decompression. Overnight inpatient admission was needed in some patients with a higher ASA grade.
PATIENT SUMMARY
In this report, we look at the outcomes of planned ureteroscopy procedures for stone disease in patients with previous urosepsis. These patients with previous emergency drainage for urosepsis had excellent outcomes from their planned ureteroscopic surgery. This information will help in preoperative patient optimisation and counselling.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30219711
pii: S2405-4569(18)30251-7
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.09.001
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
151-156Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.