Jack H Mydlo1, Gabrielle J Maybee, Mustafa M Ali-Khan. 1. Department of Urology, Temple University School of Medicine, 3401 North Broad Street, Suite 350, Philadelphia, PA 19140, USA. jmydlo@astro.temple.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the current and past literature relating to the differential treatment of emphysematous pyelonephritis (EPN). Some of the newer literature suggests percutaneous drainage (PCD), as compared to the standard nephrectomy, as a better modality. Since these two may complement each other, we sought to seek indications when to perform each treatment. METHODS: Medline and MD Consult were used for our journal review. Ten articles, ranging from 1980 to 2000, were chosen, which covered 162 patients. The criteria for selecting these articles were study size (n < 3 were excluded) and non-overlapping of patient information. Patient data was then used to certain risks of the various treatment modalities. RESULTS: Due to the lack of randomization of the studies, it is difficult to say whether PCD is superior to nephrectomy or not. It appears to be that each treatment may complement each other, and that treatment should be individualized based on the severity of the EPN and the medical condition of the patient. PCD though appears to be acceptable for use in the initial phases of the disease. However, long-term data is lacking to corroborate the overall benefit of PCD compared to nephrectomy. CONCLUSION: PCD could be utilized initially in some cases of EPN if certain conditions exist. This treatment may complement nephrectomy if the need exists, and therefore, treatment may be staged. Truly randomized studies need to be done to determine if one treatment is better than the other, and provide documented long-term follow-up of these patients.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the current and past literature relating to the differential treatment of emphysematous pyelonephritis (EPN). Some of the newer literature suggests percutaneous drainage (PCD), as compared to the standard nephrectomy, as a better modality. Since these two may complement each other, we sought to seek indications when to perform each treatment. METHODS: Medline and MD Consult were used for our journal review. Ten articles, ranging from 1980 to 2000, were chosen, which covered 162 patients. The criteria for selecting these articles were study size (n < 3 were excluded) and non-overlapping of patient information. Patient data was then used to certain risks of the various treatment modalities. RESULTS: Due to the lack of randomization of the studies, it is difficult to say whether PCD is superior to nephrectomy or not. It appears to be that each treatment may complement each other, and that treatment should be individualized based on the severity of the EPN and the medical condition of the patient. PCD though appears to be acceptable for use in the initial phases of the disease. However, long-term data is lacking to corroborate the overall benefit of PCD compared to nephrectomy. CONCLUSION:PCD could be utilized initially in some cases of EPN if certain conditions exist. This treatment may complement nephrectomy if the need exists, and therefore, treatment may be staged. Truly randomized studies need to be done to determine if one treatment is better than the other, and provide documented long-term follow-up of these patients.
Authors: Shilpi Singh; Waqas Jehangir; Jay Littlefield; George Hanna; Gretchen Bowling; Abdalla Yousif; John R Middleton Journal: N Am J Med Sci Date: 2015-07
Authors: Omar M Aboumarzouk; Owen Hughes; Krishna Narahari; Richard Coulthard; Howard Kynaston; Piotr Chlosta; Bhaskar Somani Journal: Arab J Urol Date: 2013-11-19