What is the best drainage method for a perinephric abscess?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: El-Nahas,Ahmed R.
Data de Publicação: 2010
Outros Autores: Faisal,Raed, Mohsen,Tarek, Al-Marhoon,Mohammed S., Abol-Enein,Hassan
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=S1677-55382010000100005
Resumo: PURPOSE: To compare the results of percutaneous and open drainage for perinephric abscess. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The files of 86 patients who underwent drainage for perinephric abscesses from April 2001 through March 2008 were evaluated. The method of drainage for each patient was performed according to the clinical decision of the treating physician. Percutaneous tube drain (PCD) was used for drainage of the abscess in 43 patients (group 1), while the other 43 patients were managed with open drainage (group 2). Cure was defined as complete obliteration of the abscess cavity. The cure rates, complications, and hospital stay were compared between both groups. RESULTS: The study included 50 males and 36 females with mean age 44.2 ± 17.3. The most common predisposing factors were diabetes mellitus and/or stones. Open drainage of perinephric abscesses resulted in a statistically significant higher cure rate (98% versus 69%, p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay than PCD (3.6 versus 6 days, p < 0.001). Failure of complete drainage of multilocular abscess was observed in 8 of 13 cases (61.5%) in group 1 and one of 38 cases (2.6%) in group 2 (P < 0.001). Complications were observed in 7% of group 1 and 11.5% in group 2 (P = 0.45). After mean follow-up of 19 months, 9 of 46 patients (19.6%) had recurrence; 7 of them were in group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous drainage of perinephric abscess is an effective minimally invasive treatment. However, PCD is not the optimal method for drainage of multilocular abscess because open surgical drainage provided higher cure rates and shorter hospitalization than PCD.
id SBU-1_e59063d7b08f2047d236657063edc144
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382010000100005
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling What is the best drainage method for a perinephric abscess?kidneyinfectionabscessperinephricpercutaneoussurgeryPURPOSE: To compare the results of percutaneous and open drainage for perinephric abscess. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The files of 86 patients who underwent drainage for perinephric abscesses from April 2001 through March 2008 were evaluated. The method of drainage for each patient was performed according to the clinical decision of the treating physician. Percutaneous tube drain (PCD) was used for drainage of the abscess in 43 patients (group 1), while the other 43 patients were managed with open drainage (group 2). Cure was defined as complete obliteration of the abscess cavity. The cure rates, complications, and hospital stay were compared between both groups. RESULTS: The study included 50 males and 36 females with mean age 44.2 ± 17.3. The most common predisposing factors were diabetes mellitus and/or stones. Open drainage of perinephric abscesses resulted in a statistically significant higher cure rate (98% versus 69%, p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay than PCD (3.6 versus 6 days, p < 0.001). Failure of complete drainage of multilocular abscess was observed in 8 of 13 cases (61.5%) in group 1 and one of 38 cases (2.6%) in group 2 (P < 0.001). Complications were observed in 7% of group 1 and 11.5% in group 2 (P = 0.45). After mean follow-up of 19 months, 9 of 46 patients (19.6%) had recurrence; 7 of them were in group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous drainage of perinephric abscess is an effective minimally invasive treatment. However, PCD is not the optimal method for drainage of multilocular abscess because open surgical drainage provided higher cure rates and shorter hospitalization than PCD.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2010-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382010000100005International braz j urol v.36 n.1 2010reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/S1677-55382010000100005info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessEl-Nahas,Ahmed R.Faisal,RaedMohsen,TarekAl-Marhoon,Mohammed S.Abol-Enein,Hassaneng2010-04-20T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382010000100005Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2010-04-20T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv What is the best drainage method for a perinephric abscess?
title What is the best drainage method for a perinephric abscess?
spellingShingle What is the best drainage method for a perinephric abscess?
El-Nahas,Ahmed R.
kidney
infection
abscess
perinephric
percutaneous
surgery
title_short What is the best drainage method for a perinephric abscess?
title_full What is the best drainage method for a perinephric abscess?
title_fullStr What is the best drainage method for a perinephric abscess?
title_full_unstemmed What is the best drainage method for a perinephric abscess?
title_sort What is the best drainage method for a perinephric abscess?
author El-Nahas,Ahmed R.
author_facet El-Nahas,Ahmed R.
Faisal,Raed
Mohsen,Tarek
Al-Marhoon,Mohammed S.
Abol-Enein,Hassan
author_role author
author2 Faisal,Raed
Mohsen,Tarek
Al-Marhoon,Mohammed S.
Abol-Enein,Hassan
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv El-Nahas,Ahmed R.
Faisal,Raed
Mohsen,Tarek
Al-Marhoon,Mohammed S.
Abol-Enein,Hassan
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv kidney
infection
abscess
perinephric
percutaneous
surgery
topic kidney
infection
abscess
perinephric
percutaneous
surgery
description PURPOSE: To compare the results of percutaneous and open drainage for perinephric abscess. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The files of 86 patients who underwent drainage for perinephric abscesses from April 2001 through March 2008 were evaluated. The method of drainage for each patient was performed according to the clinical decision of the treating physician. Percutaneous tube drain (PCD) was used for drainage of the abscess in 43 patients (group 1), while the other 43 patients were managed with open drainage (group 2). Cure was defined as complete obliteration of the abscess cavity. The cure rates, complications, and hospital stay were compared between both groups. RESULTS: The study included 50 males and 36 females with mean age 44.2 ± 17.3. The most common predisposing factors were diabetes mellitus and/or stones. Open drainage of perinephric abscesses resulted in a statistically significant higher cure rate (98% versus 69%, p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay than PCD (3.6 versus 6 days, p < 0.001). Failure of complete drainage of multilocular abscess was observed in 8 of 13 cases (61.5%) in group 1 and one of 38 cases (2.6%) in group 2 (P < 0.001). Complications were observed in 7% of group 1 and 11.5% in group 2 (P = 0.45). After mean follow-up of 19 months, 9 of 46 patients (19.6%) had recurrence; 7 of them were in group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous drainage of perinephric abscess is an effective minimally invasive treatment. However, PCD is not the optimal method for drainage of multilocular abscess because open surgical drainage provided higher cure rates and shorter hospitalization than PCD.
publishDate 2010
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2010-02-01
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=S1677-55382010000100005
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382010000100005
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1677-55382010000100005
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.36 n.1 2010
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_ 1750318071586750464