INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Urinary tract infections (UTI) following ureteroscopy (URS) occur in about 4% of patients. Due to the resistant bacterial strains we encounter in our institution, we retrospectively examined whether a double-drug antibiotic prophylactic treatment (APT) can reduce urosepsis after URS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 2015 and March 2016, we performed 344 URS for stone treatment. Starting from September 2015, we changed the APT. Exclusion criteria included procedures involving percutaneous nephrolithotomy, pediatric or pregnant patients, and patients with preoperative clinical UTI. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were excluded. Group 1 (n = 106) were the last to receive the conventional APT (oral ciprofloxacin), while the second group (n = 181) were the first to receive the new -regimen (intravenous gentamycin and ampicillin). A distinct percentage of both groups had a preoperative positive urine culture (29% in group 1 and 19% in group 2). Seven of 9 septic events developed in patients with preoperative positive urine culture (p < 0.001). Patients undergoing retrograde intrarenal surgery were at increased risk for sepsis when treated with conventional APT (p < 0.01). Post-URS sepsis was 7.5% using the conventional APT and 0.5% with the new APT (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A distinct number of patients undergoing URS stone treatment have positive preoperative urine cultures. "One size fits all" APT is not sufficient according to our data. A regimen tailored to the local antibiotic resistance of the uropathogens can lower the rate of sepsis.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Urinary tract infections (UTI) following ureteroscopy (URS) occur in about 4% of patients. Due to the resistant bacterial strains we encounter in our institution, we retrospectively examined whether a double-drug antibiotic prophylactic treatment (APT) can reduce urosepsis after URS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 2015 and March 2016, we performed 344 URS for stone treatment. Starting from September 2015, we changed the APT. Exclusion criteria included procedures involving percutaneous nephrolithotomy, pediatric or pregnant patients, and patients with preoperative clinical UTI. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were excluded. Group 1 (n = 106) were the last to receive the conventional APT (oral ciprofloxacin), while the second group (n = 181) were the first to receive the new -regimen (intravenous gentamycin and ampicillin). A distinct percentage of both groups had a preoperative positive urine culture (29% in group 1 and 19% in group 2). Seven of 9 septic events developed in patients with preoperative positive urine culture (p < 0.001). Patients undergoing retrograde intrarenal surgery were at increased risk for sepsis when treated with conventional APT (p < 0.01). Post-URS sepsis was 7.5% using the conventional APT and 0.5% with the new APT (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A distinct number of patients undergoing URS stone treatment have positive preoperative urine cultures. "One size fits all" APT is not sufficient according to our data. A regimen tailored to the local antibiotic resistance of the uropathogens can lower the rate of sepsis.