Cargando…

When should we give up on expectant management for patients with proximal ureteral stones?

BACKGROUND: Proximal ureteral stones (PUS) have relatively low rates of spontaneous expulsion. However, some patients do well on expectant management. Our aim was to compare risk factors for surgical intervention in patients with PUS who underwent primary intervention to those subjected to expectant...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shpunt, Igal, Elbaz, Etay, Avda, Yuval, Modai, Jonathan, Leibovici, Dan, Berkowitz, Brian, Shilo, Yaniv
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9132190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35633860
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CU9.0000000000000074
_version_ 1784713327958556672
author Shpunt, Igal
Elbaz, Etay
Avda, Yuval
Modai, Jonathan
Leibovici, Dan
Berkowitz, Brian
Shilo, Yaniv
author_facet Shpunt, Igal
Elbaz, Etay
Avda, Yuval
Modai, Jonathan
Leibovici, Dan
Berkowitz, Brian
Shilo, Yaniv
author_sort Shpunt, Igal
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Proximal ureteral stones (PUS) have relatively low rates of spontaneous expulsion. However, some patients do well on expectant management. Our aim was to compare risk factors for surgical intervention in patients with PUS who underwent primary intervention to those subjected to expectant management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of patients presented to the emergency room with symptoms of renal colic and underwent computerized tomography between August 2016 and August 2017. A total of 97 consecutive patients were identified with up to 10mm PUS. We collected patient demographics, clinical, and imaging data, and performed binary regression analysis for risk of intervention. RESULTS: The average age was 49years (range 17-97) and average stone size was 7.1mm (range 3-10). Forty-one patients underwent immediate intervention while the remaining 56 patients were treated conservatively. Of the 56 patients treated conservatively, 26 underwent delayed intervention while 30 reported spontaneous stone expulsion. On univariate analysis of all 97 patients, statistically significant risk factors for intervention were found based on stone size, age, serum lymphocyte, platelet counts, and stone density. Of these risk factors, stone size ≥ 7mm (p = 0.012, odds ratio = 5.4) and platelet count ≤ 230K/μL (p = 0.027, odds ratio = 4.9) remained statistically significant on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Stone size and platelet count were found to be risk factors for surgical intervention in patients with up to 10mm PUS. These findings may assist in identifying patients who are more suitable for conservative approach.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9132190
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91321902022-05-27 When should we give up on expectant management for patients with proximal ureteral stones? Shpunt, Igal Elbaz, Etay Avda, Yuval Modai, Jonathan Leibovici, Dan Berkowitz, Brian Shilo, Yaniv Curr Urol Advances in Urinary Calculi Management: Original Articles BACKGROUND: Proximal ureteral stones (PUS) have relatively low rates of spontaneous expulsion. However, some patients do well on expectant management. Our aim was to compare risk factors for surgical intervention in patients with PUS who underwent primary intervention to those subjected to expectant management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of patients presented to the emergency room with symptoms of renal colic and underwent computerized tomography between August 2016 and August 2017. A total of 97 consecutive patients were identified with up to 10mm PUS. We collected patient demographics, clinical, and imaging data, and performed binary regression analysis for risk of intervention. RESULTS: The average age was 49years (range 17-97) and average stone size was 7.1mm (range 3-10). Forty-one patients underwent immediate intervention while the remaining 56 patients were treated conservatively. Of the 56 patients treated conservatively, 26 underwent delayed intervention while 30 reported spontaneous stone expulsion. On univariate analysis of all 97 patients, statistically significant risk factors for intervention were found based on stone size, age, serum lymphocyte, platelet counts, and stone density. Of these risk factors, stone size ≥ 7mm (p = 0.012, odds ratio = 5.4) and platelet count ≤ 230K/μL (p = 0.027, odds ratio = 4.9) remained statistically significant on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Stone size and platelet count were found to be risk factors for surgical intervention in patients with up to 10mm PUS. These findings may assist in identifying patients who are more suitable for conservative approach. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022-03 2021-12-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9132190/ /pubmed/35633860 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CU9.0000000000000074 Text en Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
spellingShingle Advances in Urinary Calculi Management: Original Articles
Shpunt, Igal
Elbaz, Etay
Avda, Yuval
Modai, Jonathan
Leibovici, Dan
Berkowitz, Brian
Shilo, Yaniv
When should we give up on expectant management for patients with proximal ureteral stones?
title When should we give up on expectant management for patients with proximal ureteral stones?
title_full When should we give up on expectant management for patients with proximal ureteral stones?
title_fullStr When should we give up on expectant management for patients with proximal ureteral stones?
title_full_unstemmed When should we give up on expectant management for patients with proximal ureteral stones?
title_short When should we give up on expectant management for patients with proximal ureteral stones?
title_sort when should we give up on expectant management for patients with proximal ureteral stones?
topic Advances in Urinary Calculi Management: Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9132190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35633860
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CU9.0000000000000074
work_keys_str_mv AT shpuntigal whenshouldwegiveuponexpectantmanagementforpatientswithproximalureteralstones
AT elbazetay whenshouldwegiveuponexpectantmanagementforpatientswithproximalureteralstones
AT avdayuval whenshouldwegiveuponexpectantmanagementforpatientswithproximalureteralstones
AT modaijonathan whenshouldwegiveuponexpectantmanagementforpatientswithproximalureteralstones
AT leibovicidan whenshouldwegiveuponexpectantmanagementforpatientswithproximalureteralstones
AT berkowitzbrian whenshouldwegiveuponexpectantmanagementforpatientswithproximalureteralstones
AT shiloyaniv whenshouldwegiveuponexpectantmanagementforpatientswithproximalureteralstones