D I Chu1, D Shrivastava1, J P Van Batavia1, D K Bowen1, C C Tong2, C J Long1, D A Weiss1, A R Shukla1, A K Srinivasan3. 1. Division of Urology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. Department of Urology, Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Division of Urology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: SrinivasanA3@email.chop.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: After pyeloplasty, urinary drainage options include internal double-J (DJ) ureteral stents or externalized pyeloureteral (EPU) stents, which can avoid bladder symptoms and additional anesthetic exposure from stent removal. Comparative outcome studies, however, are lacking following primary pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP). OBJECTIVE: To compare operative success, operative time, hospitalization, and postoperative complications of EPU versus DJ stents following RALP. STUDY DESIGN: Consecutive children undergoing primary RALP from 10/2013 to 9/2015 were retrospectively identified. Data collected included patient demographics, stent type and duration, postoperative complications, and operative success. To control for confounding by indication for EPU stent, propensity score weighting was used to balance baseline covariates. Weighted regression analyses compared between-group differences in study outcomes. RESULTS: At median follow-up of 12.3 months, 44 and 17 patients underwent DJ and EPU stenting, respectively. At baseline, DJ stent patients were older than EPU stent patients (median 7.7 vs 1.2 years, P = 0.01) and were less likely to be on postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (25 vs 76%, P < 0.001). After weighting, these differences disappeared. All EPU stents were removed in the outpatient clinic; all DJ stents were removed under anesthesia. On weighted regression analyses (Summary Fig.), EPU stents had no different associations than DJ stents with operative success (95 vs 94%, between-group difference 1%, 95% CI -11, 13; P = 0.86), complications, or operative time, but did have 0.6 of a day more hospitalization (95% CI 0.04, 1.2; P = 0.04). DISCUSSION: Patients receiving EPU stents were different at baseline from those receiving DJ stents. After propensity score weighting balanced these covariates, EPU stents were associated with similar operative success, complications, and operative time to DJ stents. Further study is warranted in larger prospective cohorts. CONCLUSION: Use of EPU stents provided a viable alternative, particularly in younger patients, to DJ stenting with comparable success and complications, while avoiding the need for an additional anesthetic.
INTRODUCTION: After pyeloplasty, urinary drainage options include internal double-J (DJ) ureteral stents or externalized pyeloureteral (EPU) stents, which can avoid bladder symptoms and additional anesthetic exposure from stent removal. Comparative outcome studies, however, are lacking following primary pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP). OBJECTIVE: To compare operative success, operative time, hospitalization, and postoperative complications of EPU versus DJ stents following RALP. STUDY DESIGN: Consecutive children undergoing primary RALP from 10/2013 to 9/2015 were retrospectively identified. Data collected included patient demographics, stent type and duration, postoperative complications, and operative success. To control for confounding by indication for EPU stent, propensity score weighting was used to balance baseline covariates. Weighted regression analyses compared between-group differences in study outcomes. RESULTS: At median follow-up of 12.3 months, 44 and 17 patients underwent DJ and EPU stenting, respectively. At baseline, DJ stent patients were older than EPU stent patients (median 7.7 vs 1.2 years, P = 0.01) and were less likely to be on postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (25 vs 76%, P < 0.001). After weighting, these differences disappeared. All EPU stents were removed in the outpatient clinic; all DJ stents were removed under anesthesia. On weighted regression analyses (Summary Fig.), EPU stents had no different associations than DJ stents with operative success (95 vs 94%, between-group difference 1%, 95% CI -11, 13; P = 0.86), complications, or operative time, but did have 0.6 of a day more hospitalization (95% CI 0.04, 1.2; P = 0.04). DISCUSSION: Patients receiving EPU stents were different at baseline from those receiving DJ stents. After propensity score weighting balanced these covariates, EPU stents were associated with similar operative success, complications, and operative time to DJ stents. Further study is warranted in larger prospective cohorts. CONCLUSION: Use of EPU stents provided a viable alternative, particularly in younger patients, to DJ stenting with comparable success and complications, while avoiding the need for an additional anesthetic.
Authors: James D O'Leary; Magdalena Janus; Eric Duku; Duminda N Wijeysundera; Teresa To; Ping Li; Jason T Maynes; Mark W Crawford Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Lena S Sun; Guohua Li; Tonya L K Miller; Cynthia Salorio; Mary W Byrne; David C Bellinger; Caleb Ing; Raymond Park; Jerilynn Radcliffe; Stephen R Hays; Charles J DiMaggio; Timothy J Cooper; Virginia Rauh; Lynne G Maxwell; Ahrim Youn; Francis X McGowan Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Briony K Varda; Emilie K Johnson; Curtis Clark; Benjamin I Chung; Caleb P Nelson; Steven L Chang Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 7.450