Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Hsu,Chi-Sen
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Wang,Chung-Jing, Chang,Chien-Hsing, Tsai,Po-Chao, Chen,Hung-Wen, Su,Yi-Chun
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382017000300481
Resumo: ABSTRACT Introduction A randomized trial was conducted prospectively to evaluate the efficacy, related complications, and convalescence of emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy compared to percutaneous nephrostomy for decompression of the collecting system in cases of sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction. Materials and Methods The inclusion criteria included a WBC count of 10.000/mm3 or more and/or a temperature of 38°C or higher. Besides, all enrolled patients should maintain stable hemodynamic status and proper organ perfusions. A total of 113 patients with large, obstructive uretero-pelvic junction stones and clinical signs of sepsis completed the study protocol. Of those, 56 patients were placed in the emergency percutaneous nephrostomy group, while the other 57 patients were part of the percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. The primary end point was the time until normalization of white blood cells (WBC) at a count of 10.000/mm3 or less, and a temperature of 37.4°C or lower. The secondary end points included the comparison of analgesic consumption, length of stay, and related complications. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS® version 14.0.1. The Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test were used as appropriate. Results The length of hospital stays (in days) was 10.09±3.43 for the emergency percutaneous nephrostomy group and 8.18±2.72 for the percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. This set of data noted a significant difference between groups. There was no difference between groups in regard to white blood cell count (in mm3), time to normalization of white blood cell count (in days), body temperature (in ºC), time to normalization of body temperature (in days), C-reactive proteins (in mg/dL), time taken for C-reactive proteins to decrease over 25% (in days), procalcitonin (in ng/mL), or complication rates. Conclusions This study confirms that emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy may be as safe as early percutaneous nephrolithotomy in a selected low risk patients with sepsis-associated large, obstructive stone.
id SBU-1_30868f4f6da4a3ee8c71b482bfd53ff8
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382017000300481
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trialSepsisNephrostomyPercutaneousABSTRACT Introduction A randomized trial was conducted prospectively to evaluate the efficacy, related complications, and convalescence of emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy compared to percutaneous nephrostomy for decompression of the collecting system in cases of sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction. Materials and Methods The inclusion criteria included a WBC count of 10.000/mm3 or more and/or a temperature of 38°C or higher. Besides, all enrolled patients should maintain stable hemodynamic status and proper organ perfusions. A total of 113 patients with large, obstructive uretero-pelvic junction stones and clinical signs of sepsis completed the study protocol. Of those, 56 patients were placed in the emergency percutaneous nephrostomy group, while the other 57 patients were part of the percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. The primary end point was the time until normalization of white blood cells (WBC) at a count of 10.000/mm3 or less, and a temperature of 37.4°C or lower. The secondary end points included the comparison of analgesic consumption, length of stay, and related complications. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS® version 14.0.1. The Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test were used as appropriate. Results The length of hospital stays (in days) was 10.09±3.43 for the emergency percutaneous nephrostomy group and 8.18±2.72 for the percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. This set of data noted a significant difference between groups. There was no difference between groups in regard to white blood cell count (in mm3), time to normalization of white blood cell count (in days), body temperature (in ºC), time to normalization of body temperature (in days), C-reactive proteins (in mg/dL), time taken for C-reactive proteins to decrease over 25% (in days), procalcitonin (in ng/mL), or complication rates. Conclusions This study confirms that emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy may be as safe as early percutaneous nephrolithotomy in a selected low risk patients with sepsis-associated large, obstructive stone.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2017-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382017000300481International braz j urol v.43 n.3 2017reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2015.0643info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessHsu,Chi-SenWang,Chung-JingChang,Chien-HsingTsai,Po-ChaoChen,Hung-WenSu,Yi-Chuneng2017-05-31T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382017000300481Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2017-05-31T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial
title Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial
spellingShingle Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial
Hsu,Chi-Sen
Sepsis
Nephrostomy
Percutaneous
title_short Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial
title_full Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial
title_sort Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy versus emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction: a randomized controlled trial
author Hsu,Chi-Sen
author_facet Hsu,Chi-Sen
Wang,Chung-Jing
Chang,Chien-Hsing
Tsai,Po-Chao
Chen,Hung-Wen
Su,Yi-Chun
author_role author
author2 Wang,Chung-Jing
Chang,Chien-Hsing
Tsai,Po-Chao
Chen,Hung-Wen
Su,Yi-Chun
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Hsu,Chi-Sen
Wang,Chung-Jing
Chang,Chien-Hsing
Tsai,Po-Chao
Chen,Hung-Wen
Su,Yi-Chun
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Sepsis
Nephrostomy
Percutaneous
topic Sepsis
Nephrostomy
Percutaneous
description ABSTRACT Introduction A randomized trial was conducted prospectively to evaluate the efficacy, related complications, and convalescence of emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy compared to percutaneous nephrostomy for decompression of the collecting system in cases of sepsis associated with large uretero-pelvic junction stone impaction. Materials and Methods The inclusion criteria included a WBC count of 10.000/mm3 or more and/or a temperature of 38°C or higher. Besides, all enrolled patients should maintain stable hemodynamic status and proper organ perfusions. A total of 113 patients with large, obstructive uretero-pelvic junction stones and clinical signs of sepsis completed the study protocol. Of those, 56 patients were placed in the emergency percutaneous nephrostomy group, while the other 57 patients were part of the percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. The primary end point was the time until normalization of white blood cells (WBC) at a count of 10.000/mm3 or less, and a temperature of 37.4°C or lower. The secondary end points included the comparison of analgesic consumption, length of stay, and related complications. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS® version 14.0.1. The Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test were used as appropriate. Results The length of hospital stays (in days) was 10.09±3.43 for the emergency percutaneous nephrostomy group and 8.18±2.72 for the percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. This set of data noted a significant difference between groups. There was no difference between groups in regard to white blood cell count (in mm3), time to normalization of white blood cell count (in days), body temperature (in ºC), time to normalization of body temperature (in days), C-reactive proteins (in mg/dL), time taken for C-reactive proteins to decrease over 25% (in days), procalcitonin (in ng/mL), or complication rates. Conclusions This study confirms that emergency percutaneous nephrolithotomy may be as safe as early percutaneous nephrolithotomy in a selected low risk patients with sepsis-associated large, obstructive stone.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-06-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382017000300481
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382017000300481
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2015.0643
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.43 n.3 2017
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318075466481664