A comparative study of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stones in patients with prior urosepsis following emergency drainage via retrograde ureteral stent or percutaneous nephrostomy.
Flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy
Percutaneous nephrostomy
Retrograde ureteral stent
Urosepsis
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Nov 2023
28 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
04
08
2023
accepted:
14
11
2023
medline:
30
11
2023
pubmed:
29
11
2023
entrez:
29
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patients with urosepsis associated with upper urinary tract stones require further stone management after emergency drainage. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of elective flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (F-URSL) for upper urinary tract stones in patients with prior urosepsis who have undergone emergency drainage using retrograde ureteral stent(RUS) or percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN). Between January 2017 and December 2021, clinical data were collected for 102 patients who underwent elective F-URSL following emergency drainage for urosepsis caused by upper ureteral or renal stones. The patients were categorized into two groups based on the drainage method used: the RUS group and the PCN group. The collected data included patient demographics, stone parameters, infection recovery after emergency drainage, and clinical outcomes post F-URSL. Subsequently, the data underwent statistical analysis. A total of 102 patients were included in the statistical analysis, with 58 (56.86%) in the RUS group and 44 (43.14%) in the PCN group. Among the patients, 84 (82.35%) were female and 18 (17.65%) were male, with an average age of 59.36 years. Positive urine cultures were observed in 71 (69.61%) patients. Successful drainage was achieved in all patients in both groups, and there were no significant differences in the time required for normalization of white blood cell count (WBC) and body temperature following drainage. Additionally, all patients underwent F-URSL successfully, and no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of operative time, stone-free rates, postoperative fever, and postoperative hospital stay. Both RUS and PCN have been established as effective approaches for managing urosepsis caused by upper urinary tract stones. Furthermore, the impact of these two drainage methods on the subsequent management of stones through elective F-URSL has shown consistent outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patients with urosepsis associated with upper urinary tract stones require further stone management after emergency drainage.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of elective flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (F-URSL) for upper urinary tract stones in patients with prior urosepsis who have undergone emergency drainage using retrograde ureteral stent(RUS) or percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN).
METHOD
METHODS
Between January 2017 and December 2021, clinical data were collected for 102 patients who underwent elective F-URSL following emergency drainage for urosepsis caused by upper ureteral or renal stones. The patients were categorized into two groups based on the drainage method used: the RUS group and the PCN group. The collected data included patient demographics, stone parameters, infection recovery after emergency drainage, and clinical outcomes post F-URSL. Subsequently, the data underwent statistical analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 102 patients were included in the statistical analysis, with 58 (56.86%) in the RUS group and 44 (43.14%) in the PCN group. Among the patients, 84 (82.35%) were female and 18 (17.65%) were male, with an average age of 59.36 years. Positive urine cultures were observed in 71 (69.61%) patients. Successful drainage was achieved in all patients in both groups, and there were no significant differences in the time required for normalization of white blood cell count (WBC) and body temperature following drainage. Additionally, all patients underwent F-URSL successfully, and no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of operative time, stone-free rates, postoperative fever, and postoperative hospital stay.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Both RUS and PCN have been established as effective approaches for managing urosepsis caused by upper urinary tract stones. Furthermore, the impact of these two drainage methods on the subsequent management of stones through elective F-URSL has shown consistent outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38017464
doi: 10.1186/s12894-023-01369-5
pii: 10.1186/s12894-023-01369-5
pmc: PMC10685477
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
196Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
BJU Int. 2013 Jul;112(2):E122-8
pubmed: 23795789
Sci Rep. 2022 Mar 22;12(1):4833
pubmed: 35318408
J Urol. 2016 Sep;196(3):769-74
pubmed: 27038771
World J Urol. 2019 Jan;37(1):125-131
pubmed: 29915945
Springerplus. 2015 Jul 24;4:373
pubmed: 26217550
J Urol. 2011 Nov;186(5):1899-903
pubmed: 21944106
J Urol. 2013 Mar;189(3):946-51
pubmed: 23017519
Can Urol Assoc J. 2021 Dec;15(12):E676-E690
pubmed: 34464257
J Endourol. 2010 Feb;24(2):185-9
pubmed: 20063999
World J Urol. 2022 Jun;40(6):1377-1389
pubmed: 35072738
Urolithiasis. 2016 Oct;44(5):415-9
pubmed: 26662171
J Endourol. 2008 Sep;22(9):2147-51
pubmed: 18811571
J Infect Chemother. 2021 Feb;27(2):323-328
pubmed: 33309627
Eur Urol. 2013 Jul;64(1):85-92
pubmed: 23031677
BJU Int. 2021 Dec;128(6):697-701
pubmed: 33580621
J Urol. 1998 Oct;160(4):1260-4
pubmed: 9751331
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10
pubmed: 26903338
Urol Int. 2022;106(12):1246-1251
pubmed: 34718241
Urol Clin North Am. 2015 Nov;42(4):459-72
pubmed: 26475943
J Endourol. 2014 Dec;28(12):1439-43
pubmed: 25479184
J Endourol. 2015 Jan;29(1):25-8
pubmed: 24999535
World J Urol. 2021 Feb;39(2):555-561
pubmed: 32382840
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015 Dec 4;112(49):837-47; quiz 848
pubmed: 26754121
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007 Nov;30(5):390-7
pubmed: 17728107
J Infect Chemother. 2013 Dec;19(6):1102-8
pubmed: 23783396
J Endourol. 2019 Feb;33(2):132-139
pubmed: 30595058
Curr Opin Urol. 2017 Mar;27(2):133-137
pubmed: 27846034
Urology. 2003 Apr;61(4):713-8
pubmed: 12670551
Lancet. 2020 Jan 18;395(10219):200-211
pubmed: 31954465
Nat Rev Urol. 2013 Oct;10(10):598-605
pubmed: 23999583
Urol Int. 2020;104(1-2):113-124
pubmed: 31846966
World J Urol. 2019 Jan;37(1):133-142
pubmed: 29915944