Cargando…

Should we support prophylactic intervention for asymptomatic kidney stones? A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing prophylactic intervention or active surveillance for asymptomatic kidney stones and identify factors influencing the outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed the medical records of patients with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wu, Tao, Liu, Zhiwei, Ma, Shanjin, Xue, Wei, Jiang, Xiaoye, Ma, Jianjun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9137265/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35622129
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01331-4
_version_ 1784714341210128384
author Wu, Tao
Liu, Zhiwei
Ma, Shanjin
Xue, Wei
Jiang, Xiaoye
Ma, Jianjun
author_facet Wu, Tao
Liu, Zhiwei
Ma, Shanjin
Xue, Wei
Jiang, Xiaoye
Ma, Jianjun
author_sort Wu, Tao
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing prophylactic intervention or active surveillance for asymptomatic kidney stones and identify factors influencing the outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed the medical records of patients with asymptomatic kidney stones in two institutes between November 2014 and November 2019. Standardized questions were asked via phone calls to supplement the outcomes. Pain, hydronephrosis, stone growth, serious infection, gross hematuria, and spontaneous passage were defined as stone-related events. Future intervention was also recorded to evaluate management. A total of 101 patients with 120 kidney units were enrolled in this study. The median follow-up time was 63 months. The patients were classified into the control group (79 cases) or exposure group (41 cases) according to whether they underwent prophylactic intervention before any stone-related events. Generally, the rates of stone-related events and future intervention were significantly different between the two groups (57.0 vs. 12.2%, p < 0.001; and 31.6 vs. 4.9%, p = 0.002, respectively). After applying stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted, Cox regression suggested that patients who underwent prophylactic intervention were less likely to experience stone-related events and future intervention (HR = 0.175, and HR = 0.028, respectively). In conclusion, patients who underwent prophylactic intervention had a lower risk of stone-related events and future intervention, although they had some slight complications. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00240-022-01331-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9137265
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91372652022-06-02 Should we support prophylactic intervention for asymptomatic kidney stones? A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up Wu, Tao Liu, Zhiwei Ma, Shanjin Xue, Wei Jiang, Xiaoye Ma, Jianjun Urolithiasis Original Article The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing prophylactic intervention or active surveillance for asymptomatic kidney stones and identify factors influencing the outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed the medical records of patients with asymptomatic kidney stones in two institutes between November 2014 and November 2019. Standardized questions were asked via phone calls to supplement the outcomes. Pain, hydronephrosis, stone growth, serious infection, gross hematuria, and spontaneous passage were defined as stone-related events. Future intervention was also recorded to evaluate management. A total of 101 patients with 120 kidney units were enrolled in this study. The median follow-up time was 63 months. The patients were classified into the control group (79 cases) or exposure group (41 cases) according to whether they underwent prophylactic intervention before any stone-related events. Generally, the rates of stone-related events and future intervention were significantly different between the two groups (57.0 vs. 12.2%, p < 0.001; and 31.6 vs. 4.9%, p = 0.002, respectively). After applying stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted, Cox regression suggested that patients who underwent prophylactic intervention were less likely to experience stone-related events and future intervention (HR = 0.175, and HR = 0.028, respectively). In conclusion, patients who underwent prophylactic intervention had a lower risk of stone-related events and future intervention, although they had some slight complications. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00240-022-01331-4. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-05-27 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9137265/ /pubmed/35622129 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01331-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Wu, Tao
Liu, Zhiwei
Ma, Shanjin
Xue, Wei
Jiang, Xiaoye
Ma, Jianjun
Should we support prophylactic intervention for asymptomatic kidney stones? A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up
title Should we support prophylactic intervention for asymptomatic kidney stones? A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up
title_full Should we support prophylactic intervention for asymptomatic kidney stones? A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up
title_fullStr Should we support prophylactic intervention for asymptomatic kidney stones? A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up
title_full_unstemmed Should we support prophylactic intervention for asymptomatic kidney stones? A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up
title_short Should we support prophylactic intervention for asymptomatic kidney stones? A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up
title_sort should we support prophylactic intervention for asymptomatic kidney stones? a retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9137265/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35622129
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-022-01331-4
work_keys_str_mv AT wutao shouldwesupportprophylacticinterventionforasymptomatickidneystonesaretrospectivecohortstudywithlongtermfollowup
AT liuzhiwei shouldwesupportprophylacticinterventionforasymptomatickidneystonesaretrospectivecohortstudywithlongtermfollowup
AT mashanjin shouldwesupportprophylacticinterventionforasymptomatickidneystonesaretrospectivecohortstudywithlongtermfollowup
AT xuewei shouldwesupportprophylacticinterventionforasymptomatickidneystonesaretrospectivecohortstudywithlongtermfollowup
AT jiangxiaoye shouldwesupportprophylacticinterventionforasymptomatickidneystonesaretrospectivecohortstudywithlongtermfollowup
AT majianjun shouldwesupportprophylacticinterventionforasymptomatickidneystonesaretrospectivecohortstudywithlongtermfollowup