Amelia Pietropaolo1, Jane Hendry2, Rena Kyriakides1, Robert Geraghty1, Patrick Jones1, Omar Aboumarzouk2, Bhaskar K Somani3. 1. University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK. 2. Glasgow Urological Research Unit, Department of Urology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK. 3. University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK; University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. Electronic address: b.k.somani@soton.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elective treatment of ureteric stones is needed after emergency drainage of urosepsis. OBJECTIVE: We wanted to look at the outcomes of elective ureteroscopic stone treatment in patients with prior sepsis and emergency drainage via retrograde ureteric stent (RUS) or percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data of all patients who underwent elective ureteroscopy (URS) for stone disease over 5 yr (March 2012-December 2016) were prospectively collected. INTERVENTION: Elective URS following previous emergency RUS or PCN. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes were collated for consecutive patients who underwent emergency drainage for urosepsis secondary to stone disease, followed by elective URS. Data was collected regarding patient demographics, stone parameters, and clinical outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 24. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 76 patients underwent 82 elective procedures (six underwent bilateral URS) with a male to female ratio of 1:2 and a mean age of 57 yr. Emergency decompression was achieved via RUS in 63 (83%) and PCN in 13 (17%) patients. A positive urine culture on presentation was obtained in 26 (34%) patients, and 27 (36%) patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The mean single and overall stone size was 8.6 (2-23) and 10.8 (2-32) mm, respectively. The mean operating time was 42 (5-129) min with stone-free rate (SFR) of 97% (n=74). There were three (4%) complications in total, of which two patients developed urinary tract infection needing intravenous antibiotics (Clavien II) and a third developed sepsis (Clavien IV) needing ICU admission. There was no difference in ureteroscopic lithotripsy outcomes (operative time, complications, or SFR) on comparing initial RUS or PCN, admission to ICU or ward, positive or negative urine culture result, presence of single or multiple stones, and between American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade of patients. The ASA grade of patients was a significant predictor of day case procedures (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Elective URS achieved excellent outcomes in patients who previously presented with obstructing calculi and sepsis needing emergency decompression. Overnight inpatient admission was needed in some patients with a higher ASA grade. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we look at the outcomes of planned ureteroscopy procedures for stone disease in patients with previous urosepsis. These patients with previous emergency drainage for urosepsis had excellent outcomes from their planned ureteroscopic surgery. This information will help in preoperative patient optimisation and counselling.
BACKGROUND: Elective treatment of ureteric stones is needed after emergency drainage of urosepsis. OBJECTIVE: We wanted to look at the outcomes of elective ureteroscopic stone treatment in patients with prior sepsis and emergency drainage via retrograde ureteric stent (RUS) or percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data of all patients who underwent elective ureteroscopy (URS) for stone disease over 5 yr (March 2012-December 2016) were prospectively collected. INTERVENTION: Elective URS following previous emergency RUS or PCN. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes were collated for consecutive patients who underwent emergency drainage for urosepsis secondary to stone disease, followed by elective URS. Data was collected regarding patient demographics, stone parameters, and clinical outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 24. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 76 patients underwent 82 elective procedures (six underwent bilateral URS) with a male to female ratio of 1:2 and a mean age of 57 yr. Emergency decompression was achieved via RUS in 63 (83%) and PCN in 13 (17%) patients. A positive urine culture on presentation was obtained in 26 (34%) patients, and 27 (36%) patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The mean single and overall stone size was 8.6 (2-23) and 10.8 (2-32) mm, respectively. The mean operating time was 42 (5-129) min with stone-free rate (SFR) of 97% (n=74). There were three (4%) complications in total, of which two patients developed urinary tract infection needing intravenous antibiotics (Clavien II) and a third developed sepsis (Clavien IV) needing ICU admission. There was no difference in ureteroscopic lithotripsy outcomes (operative time, complications, or SFR) on comparing initial RUS or PCN, admission to ICU or ward, positive or negative urine culture result, presence of single or multiple stones, and between American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade of patients. The ASA grade of patients was a significant predictor of day case procedures (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Elective URS achieved excellent outcomes in patients who previously presented with obstructing calculi and sepsis needing emergency decompression. Overnight inpatient admission was needed in some patients with a higher ASA grade. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we look at the outcomes of planned ureteroscopy procedures for stone disease in patients with previous urosepsis. These patients with previous emergency drainage for urosepsis had excellent outcomes from their planned ureteroscopic surgery. This information will help in preoperative patient optimisation and counselling.
Authors: Domenico Veneziano; A Tafuri; J Gomez Rivas; A Dourado; Z Okhunov; B K Somani; N Marino; G Fuchs; G Cacciamani Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jakub Marek Ratajczak; Taras Hladun; Bartosz Krenz; Krzysztof Bromber; Maciej Salagierski; Michał Marczak Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Robert M Geraghty; Amelia Pietropaolo; Luca Villa; John Fitzpatrick; Matthew Shaw; Rajan Veeratterapillay; Alistair Rogers; Eugenio Ventimiglia; Bhaskar K Somani Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-09 Impact factor: 4.241