The comparison of two surgical decompressions for patients with upper urinary tract calculi and sepsis
10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20200202-00054
- VernacularTitle:两种肾盂减压方式治疗上尿路结石合并尿源性脓毒血症的效果比较
- Author:
Shiyong QI
1
;
Qi WANG
;
Xingyu WANG
;
Xiong YANG
;
Sen ZHAO
;
Jianqiang ZHU
;
Yue CHEN
;
Yong XU
;
Changyi QUAN
Author Information
1. 天津医科大学第二医院泌尿外科 300211
- From:
Chinese Journal of Urology
2020;41(4):256-261
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the effectivity and safety of ureteral stenting and percutaneous nephrostomy for patients with upper urinary calculi and sepsis.Methods:From June 2013 to June 2019, 429 patients with upper urinary calculi and urosepsis were accepted in the second hospital of Tianjin Medical University. According to surgical decompression, patients were divided into two groups, ureteral stenting (US, n=304) and percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN, n=125).121 patients were accompanied with septic shock in US group, 56 in PCN group. The effectivity of decompression was analyzed separately in patients with or without shock. For decompression, data included the success rate of decompression, the time of infection related parameters (temperature, blood WBC and CRP) returning to normal and the complications (progress of infection within 30min after decompression, perforation of ureter or pelvis). When urosepsis was cured, ureteroscopic lithotripsy was followed for all patients. The operation time, the stone free rate, the rate of using RIRS and the complications were compared.Results:For patients without septic shock, the success rate of decompression in PCN was higher (68/69)than that of US(165/183)( P =0.025); there was no significant difference in hospital stay for infection control and the time of infection related parameters (temperature, blood WBC and CRP) returning to normal ( P>0.05). The rate of infection progress within 30min in US(25/183) was higher than PCN(3/69)( P=0.036). When ureteroscopic lithotripsy was mentioned, the operation time in US(38.5±6.8 min) was longer than PCN(32.8±4.5 min)( P=0.000), the stone free rate and the rate of using RIRS were lower in PCN( P=0.044, P=0.0002). For patients with septic shock, the success rate of decompression in PCN was higher (55/56)than that of US(106/121)( P=0.022). The rate of infection progress within 30min after decompression was still higher in US ( P=0.048), the time of infection related parameters (temperature, blood WBC and CRP) returning to normal was shorter in PCN ( P=0.000, P=0.003, P=0.000). For lithotripsy, the operation time was longer in US ( P=0.017), the stone free rate and the rate of using RIRS were lower in PCN ( P=0.024, P=0.005). Conclusions:For patients with upper urinary calculi and urosepsis, both ureteral stenting and percutaneous nephrostomy can drainage the pelvis effectively. PCN provides quick recovery, especially when septic shock is involved. For the following ureteroscopic lithotripsy, PCN contributes to less operation time and higher stone free rate, reduces the use of flexible ureteroscope.
