Cargando…

Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION: A randomized trial was conducted prospectively to evaluate the efficacy, related complications, and convalescence of emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy compared to percutaneous nephrostomy for decompression of the collecting system in cases of sepsis associated with large uretero-p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hsu, Chi-Sen, Wang, Chung-Jing, Chang, Chien-Hsing, Tsai, Po-Chao, Chen, Hung-Wen, Su, Yi-Chun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5462139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28128911
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0643
_version_ 1783242437971410944
author Hsu, Chi-Sen
Wang, Chung-Jing
Chang, Chien-Hsing
Tsai, Po-Chao
Chen, Hung-Wen
Su, Yi-Chun
author_facet Hsu, Chi-Sen
Wang, Chung-Jing
Chang, Chien-Hsing
Tsai, Po-Chao
Chen, Hung-Wen
Su, Yi-Chun
author_sort Hsu, Chi-Sen
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: A randomized trial was conducted prospectively to evaluate the efficacy, related complications, and convalescence of emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy compared to percutaneous nephrostomy for decompression of the collecting system in cases of sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The inclusion criteria included a WBC count of 10.000/mm(3) or more and/or a temperature of 38°C or higher. Besides, all enrolled patients should maintain stable hemodynamic status and proper organ perfusions. A total of 113 patients with large, obstructive uretero-pelvic junction stones and clinical signs of sepsis completed the study protocol. Of those, 56 patients were placed in the emergency percutaneous nephrostomy group, while the other 57 patients were part of the percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. The primary end point was the time until normalization of white blood cells (WBC) at a count of 10.000/mm(3) or less, and a temperature of 37.4°C or lower. The secondary end points included the comparison of analgesic consumption, length of stay, and related complications. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS® version 14.0.1. The Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test were used as appropriate. RESULTS: The length of hospital stays (in days) was 10.09±3.43 for the emergency percutaneous nephrostomy group and 8.18±2.72 for the percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. This set of data noted a significant difference between groups. There was no difference between groups in regard to white blood cell count (in mm(3)), time to normalization of white blood cell count (in days), body temperature (in ºC), time to normalization of body temperature (in days), C-reactive proteins (in mg/dL), time taken for C-reactive proteins to decrease over 25% (in days), procalcitonin (in ng/mL), or complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy may be as safe as early percutaneous nephrolithotomy in a selected low risk patients with sepsis-associated large, obstructive stone.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5462139
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54621392017-06-19 Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial Hsu, Chi-Sen Wang, Chung-Jing Chang, Chien-Hsing Tsai, Po-Chao Chen, Hung-Wen Su, Yi-Chun Int Braz J Urol Original Article INTRODUCTION: A randomized trial was conducted prospectively to evaluate the efficacy, related complications, and convalescence of emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy compared to percutaneous nephrostomy for decompression of the collecting system in cases of sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The inclusion criteria included a WBC count of 10.000/mm(3) or more and/or a temperature of 38°C or higher. Besides, all enrolled patients should maintain stable hemodynamic status and proper organ perfusions. A total of 113 patients with large, obstructive uretero-pelvic junction stones and clinical signs of sepsis completed the study protocol. Of those, 56 patients were placed in the emergency percutaneous nephrostomy group, while the other 57 patients were part of the percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. The primary end point was the time until normalization of white blood cells (WBC) at a count of 10.000/mm(3) or less, and a temperature of 37.4°C or lower. The secondary end points included the comparison of analgesic consumption, length of stay, and related complications. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS® version 14.0.1. The Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test were used as appropriate. RESULTS: The length of hospital stays (in days) was 10.09±3.43 for the emergency percutaneous nephrostomy group and 8.18±2.72 for the percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. This set of data noted a significant difference between groups. There was no difference between groups in regard to white blood cell count (in mm(3)), time to normalization of white blood cell count (in days), body temperature (in ºC), time to normalization of body temperature (in days), C-reactive proteins (in mg/dL), time taken for C-reactive proteins to decrease over 25% (in days), procalcitonin (in ng/mL), or complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy may be as safe as early percutaneous nephrolithotomy in a selected low risk patients with sepsis-associated large, obstructive stone. Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5462139/ /pubmed/28128911 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0643 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Hsu, Chi-Sen
Wang, Chung-Jing
Chang, Chien-Hsing
Tsai, Po-Chao
Chen, Hung-Wen
Su, Yi-Chun
Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial
title Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial
title_full Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial
title_short Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial
title_sort emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5462139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28128911
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0643
work_keys_str_mv AT hsuchisen emergencypercutaneousnephrostomyversusemergencypercutaneousnephrolithotomyinpatientswithsepsisassociatedwithlargeureteropelvicjunctionstoneimpactionarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT wangchungjing emergencypercutaneousnephrostomyversusemergencypercutaneousnephrolithotomyinpatientswithsepsisassociatedwithlargeureteropelvicjunctionstoneimpactionarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT changchienhsing emergencypercutaneousnephrostomyversusemergencypercutaneousnephrolithotomyinpatientswithsepsisassociatedwithlargeureteropelvicjunctionstoneimpactionarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT tsaipochao emergencypercutaneousnephrostomyversusemergencypercutaneousnephrolithotomyinpatientswithsepsisassociatedwithlargeureteropelvicjunctionstoneimpactionarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT chenhungwen emergencypercutaneousnephrostomyversusemergencypercutaneousnephrolithotomyinpatientswithsepsisassociatedwithlargeureteropelvicjunctionstoneimpactionarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT suyichun emergencypercutaneousnephrostomyversusemergencypercutaneousnephrolithotomyinpatientswithsepsisassociatedwithlargeureteropelvicjunctionstoneimpactionarandomizedcontrolledtrial