Emergency upper urinary tract decompression: double-J stent or nephrostomy? A European YAU/ESUT/EULIS/BSIR survey among urologists and radiologists

Emergency treatment of obstructive pyelonephritis: A single center series

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare two different drainage methods, percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) and retrograde ureteral double-J (DJ) stent insertion, in patients with obstructive pyelonephritis (OP).

METHODS

The study included 77 patients who presented to the emergency department due to stones. Type of decompression treatment (PCN or DJ stent), fever, white blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, urine culture, blood culture, presence of additional diseases, and antibiotic treatment were evaluated for these patients. Emergency decompressive treatment was not randomly assigned. The clinician chose the appropriate treatment method based on the patient's condition after obtaining an informed consent. Patients under the age of 18 were categorized into three subgroups: infants, children under 10 years, and adolescents.

RESULTS

Of the 77 patients, 31 were in the DJ stent group and 46 were in the PCN group. Patients in the PCN group exhibited significantly higher fever levels before the procedure (37.6 ± 1.0°C). Additionally, the positivity rate of urine and blood cultures was higher in the PCN group. The average time to stone treatment after infection and medical treatment, as well as fever control, was shorter in the PCN group (9 ± 2.3 days). Empiric treatment with Ceftriaxone (1 g IV) was confirmed by sensitivity results of urine or blood culture in 45% of cases. None of the patients developed advanced urosepsis after the procedure, but the resolution of infection parameters was faster in the PCN group (7 ± 3.3 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Both PCN and DJ stent insertion are effective and safe methods for managing obstructive pyelonephritis. It was observed that the PCN method under local anesthesia was useful in quickly controlling fever and allowing early surgical treatment. Finally, third-generation cephalosporin antibiotics are beneficial for empiric initial treatment.

Surveys in endourology over time: what are the urologist preferences? A trend review over a 24-year period (2000-2024)

Introduction

Surveys are a powerful tool to investigate practice patterns and preferences among health care practitioners. This narrative review aims to analyse the trends of publications on surveys related to endourological procedures in the new millennium, to highlight changes and preferences in urologists' practice of urolithiasis.

Material and methods

A literature search was conducted in Google Scholar and PubMed focusing on English language surveys published between 2000 and 2024 (24 years). The SPICE (Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, Evaluation) framework was used to frame and answer the question (S: urology practice; P: senior or training urologists; I: surveys since 2000 C: none; E: pathways in the management of urolithiasis). The studies were divided into two 12-year periods: period 1 (2000-2011) and period 2 (2012-2024). The studied procedures were related to the management of stone disease including ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and shockwave lithotripsy (SWL).

Results

Over a 24-year timeframe, 27 surveys were selected on the subject, with a relative increase from period one to period two (23.7%). Notably, the technique experiencing significant growth was URS, with just one survey published in the initial period compared to 11 in the subsequent period and a decrease toward less utilisation of SWL. The surveys showed that urologists are moving towards minimisation of both PCNL and URS, with greater use of access sheath and lasers for fragmentation, although variations in practice patterns are observed worldwide, especially related to the use and duration of both pre- and post-operative stent insertions. Most surveys suggest that the majority of urologists follow international guidelines during their clinical practice.

Conclusions

Endourology surveys have experienced steady growth in publications. Instrumentation trends emphasise miniaturisation, stent indications, laser types, and disposable ureteroscopes. Recently, there has been a focus on endourological training, imaging, ergonomics, and guidelines to enhance patient and surgical outcomes.

Urgent ureterorenoscopy as a primary treatment for ureteral stone: why not?

To evaluate the feasibility of urgent ureteroscopy (uURS) and elective ureteroscopy (eURS) in the management of patients with renal colic due to ureteral stones. Patients who were operated for ureteral stones between September 2020 and March 2022 were determined retrospectively. The patients who were operated within the first 24 h constituted the uURS group, while the patients who were operated after 24 h were classified as eURS. No limiting factors such as age, gender and concomitant disease were determined as inclusion criteria. Patients with bilateral or multiple ureteral stones, bleeding diathesis, patients requiring emergency nephrostomy or decompression with ureteral JJ stent, and pregnant women were not included. The two groups were compared in terms of stone-free rate, complications, and overall outcomes. According to the inclusion-exclusion criteria, a total of 572 patients were identified, including 142 female and 430 male patients. There were 219 patients in the first group, the uURS arm, and 353 patients in the eURS arm. The mean stone size was 8.1 ± 2.6. The stone-free rate was found to be 87.8% (502) in general, and 92 and 85% for uURS and eURS, respectively. No major intraoperative or postoperative complications were observed in any of the patients. Urgent URS can be performed effectively and safely as the primary treatment in patients with renal colic due to ureteral stones. In this way, the primary treatment of the patient is carried out, as well as the increased workload, additional examination, treatment and related morbidities are prevented.

Percutaneous nephrostomy versus ureteral stent in hydronephrosis secondary to obstructive urolithiasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To assess if there is a preferable intervention between retrograde ureteral stent (RUS) and percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) tube, in cases of upper urinary tract stone obstruction with complications requiring urgent drainage, by evaluating outcomes regarding urinary symptoms, quality of life (QoL), spontaneous stone passage, and length of hospital stays, since there is no literature stating the superiority of one modality over the other.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE and other sources for relevant articles in June 2019 without any date restrictions or filters applied. The selection was done first by the title and abstract screening and then by full-text assessment for eligibility. Only randomized controlled trials or cohort studies in patients with hydronephrosis secondary to obstructive urolithiasis that presented comparative data between PCN and RUS placement concerning at least one of the defined outcome measures were included. Lastly, MEDLINE database and PubMed platform were screened again using the same terms, from June 2019 until November 2022.

Results

Of 556 initial articles, seven were included in this review. Most works were considered of moderate-to-high quality. Three studies regarding QoL showed a tendency against stenting, even though only one demonstrated statistically significant negative impact on overall health state. Two works reported significantly more post-intervention urinary symptoms in stenting patients. One article found that PCN is a significant predictor of spontaneous stone passage, when adjusted for stone size and location. Findings on length of hospital stays were not consistent among articles.

Conclusion

PCN appears to be the intervention better tolerated, with less impact on the patient's perceived QoL and less post-operative urinary symptoms, in comparison with RUS. Nevertheless, further studies with larger samples and a randomized controlled design are suggested.

Urological Guidelines for Kidney Stones: Overview and Comprehensive Update

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidelines are published by urological organisations for various conditions, including urolithiasis. In this paper, we provide guidance on the management of kidney stone disease (KSD) and compare the American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urologists (EAU) guidelines.

METHODS

We evaluate and appraise the evidence and grade of recommendation provided by the AUA and EAU guidelines on urolithiasis (both surgical and medical management).

RESULTS

Both the AUA and EAU guidelines provide guidance on the type of imaging, treatment options, and medical therapies and advice on specific patient groups, such as in paediatrics and pregnancy. While the guidelines are generally aligned and based on evidence, some subtle differences exist in the recommendations, but both are generally unanimous for the majority of the principles of management.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend that the guidelines should undergo regular updates based on recently published material, and while these guidelines provide a framework, treatment plans should still be personalised, respecting patient preferences, surgical expertise, and various other individual factors, to offer the best outcome for kidney stone patients.

Acute kidney injury due to bilateral malignant ureteral obstruction: Is there an optimal mode of drainage?

There is a well-known relationship between malignancy and impairment of kidney functions, either in the form of acute kidney injury or chronic kidney disease. In the former, however, bilateral malignant ureteral obstruction is a surgically correctable factor of this complex pathology. It warrants urgent drainage of the kidneys in emergency settings. However, there are multiple controversies and debates about the optimal mode of drainage of the bilaterally obstructed kidneys in these patients. This review addressed most of the concerns and provided a comprehensive presentation of this topic from the recent literature. Also, we provided different perspectives on the management of the bilateral obstructed kidneys due to malignancy. Despite the frequent trials for improving the success rates and functions of ureteral stents, placement of a percutaneous nephrostomy tube remains the most recommended tool of drainage due to bilateral ureteral obstruction, especially in patients with advanced malignancy. However, the disturbance of the quality of life of those patients remains a major unresolved concern. Beside the unfavorable prognostic potential of the underlying malignancy and the various risk stratification models that have been proposed, the response of the kidney to initial drainage can be anticipated and evaluated by multiple renal prognostic factors, including increased urine output, serum creatinine trajectory, and time-to-nadir serum creatinine after drainage.