Author:
Liao Sucai,Xu Xiang,Yuan Yuan,Tang Keiyui,Wei Genggeng,Lu Zhengquan,Xiong Lin
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Patients with urosepsis associated with upper urinary tract stones require further stone management after emergency drainage.
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
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
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
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.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Urology,Reproductive Medicine,General Medicine
Reference32 articles.
1. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The Third International Consensus definitions for Sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–10.
2. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, Shackelford KA, Tsoi D, Kievlan DR, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: analysis for the global burden of Disease Study. Lancet Lond Engl. 2020;395(10219):200–11.
3. Wagenlehner FME, Weidner W, Naber KG. Optimal management of urosepsis from the urological perspective. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007;30(5):390–7.
4. Wagenlehner FME, Tandogdu Z, Bjerklund Johansen TE. An update on classification and management of urosepsis. Curr Opin Urol. 2017;27(2):133–7.
5. Dreger NM, Degener S, Ahmad-Nejad P, Wöbker G, Roth S. Urosepsis–Etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Dtsch Arzteblatt Int. 2015;112(49):837–47. quiz 848.