Ureteric wall thickness as a novel predictor for failed retrograde ureteric stent placement

Q3 Medicine
Nicholas S. Dean, Patrick Albers, A. Senthilselvan, Alexandra Bain, Matthew Mancuso, Ryan Mclarty, Trevor Schuler, T. Wollin, Shubha K. De
{"title":"Ureteric wall thickness as a novel predictor for failed retrograde ureteric stent placement","authors":"Nicholas S. Dean, Patrick Albers, A. Senthilselvan, Alexandra Bain, Matthew Mancuso, Ryan Mclarty, Trevor Schuler, T. Wollin, Shubha K. De","doi":"10.5489/cuaj.8845","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: We sought to identify predictors of failed retrograde ureteric stent (FRS) placement in the setting of obstructing ureteric calculi. In addition to patient- and stone-specific characteristics, we also considered computed tomography (CT) measures of ureteric wall thickness (UWT), as it has shown clinical potential in predicting outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, and spontaneous stone passage.\nMethods: We performed a retrospective, case-control study comparing patients who had successful retrograde stent (SRS) insertions with those who failed stent placement and ultimately required nephrostomy tube (NT) insertion (2013–2019). Patients were identified using administrative data from a shared electronic medical record (capturing all urology patients in our geographic area) and a prospective database capturing all institutional interventional radiology procedures. Patient demographics, as well as clinical and stone characteristics were then collected, and imaging manually reviewed. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis in collaboration with a statistician.\nResults: A total of 109 patients met inclusion for analysis (34 FRS, 75 SRS). The most common indication for stent insertion included sepsis (79%). On multivariate analysis both acute kidney injury as primary indication for stent insertion (odds ratio [OR] 9.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.91–44.00, p=0.006) and UWT (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15–0.74, p=0.007) were found to be significantly associated with failed retrograde stent placement. A receiver operator characteristic curve analysis demonstrates an optimal UWT cutoff of 3.2 mm (sensitivity 60.6%, specificity 83.3%).\nConclusions: Elevated UWT and acute kidney injury as an indication for urgent urinary decompression in the setting of obstructing ureteric stones are predictive of failed retrograde stent placement. These patients may benefit from upfront nephrostomy tube insertion.","PeriodicalId":38001,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Urological Association Journal","volume":"28 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Urological Association Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8845","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: We sought to identify predictors of failed retrograde ureteric stent (FRS) placement in the setting of obstructing ureteric calculi. In addition to patient- and stone-specific characteristics, we also considered computed tomography (CT) measures of ureteric wall thickness (UWT), as it has shown clinical potential in predicting outcomes of shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, and spontaneous stone passage. Methods: We performed a retrospective, case-control study comparing patients who had successful retrograde stent (SRS) insertions with those who failed stent placement and ultimately required nephrostomy tube (NT) insertion (2013–2019). Patients were identified using administrative data from a shared electronic medical record (capturing all urology patients in our geographic area) and a prospective database capturing all institutional interventional radiology procedures. Patient demographics, as well as clinical and stone characteristics were then collected, and imaging manually reviewed. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis in collaboration with a statistician. Results: A total of 109 patients met inclusion for analysis (34 FRS, 75 SRS). The most common indication for stent insertion included sepsis (79%). On multivariate analysis both acute kidney injury as primary indication for stent insertion (odds ratio [OR] 9.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.91–44.00, p=0.006) and UWT (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15–0.74, p=0.007) were found to be significantly associated with failed retrograde stent placement. A receiver operator characteristic curve analysis demonstrates an optimal UWT cutoff of 3.2 mm (sensitivity 60.6%, specificity 83.3%). Conclusions: Elevated UWT and acute kidney injury as an indication for urgent urinary decompression in the setting of obstructing ureteric stones are predictive of failed retrograde stent placement. These patients may benefit from upfront nephrostomy tube insertion.
输尿管壁厚度是逆行输尿管支架置入失败的新型预测指标
导言:我们试图找出在输尿管结石梗阻的情况下逆行输尿管支架(FRS)置入失败的预测因素。除了患者和结石特异性特征外,我们还考虑了输尿管壁厚度(UWT)的计算机断层扫描(CT)测量值,因为它在预测冲击波碎石术、输尿管镜检查和自发性结石通过的结果方面具有临床潜力:我们进行了一项回顾性病例对照研究,比较了成功插入逆行支架(SRS)的患者与支架置入失败并最终需要插入肾造瘘管(NT)的患者(2013-2019 年)。我们通过共享电子病历中的管理数据(包含我们所在地区的所有泌尿科患者)和前瞻性数据库(包含所有机构的介入放射学手术)来确定患者。然后收集了患者的人口统计学特征、临床特征和结石特征,并对成像进行了人工审核。在统计学家的合作下,采用单变量和多变量逻辑回归分析法进行统计分析:共有 109 名患者符合分析要求(34 名 FRS,75 名 SRS)。最常见的支架植入指征包括败血症(79%)。通过多变量分析发现,急性肾损伤作为支架植入的主要适应症(几率比[OR]9.16,95% 置信区间[CI]1.91-44.00,P=0.006)和 UWT(OR 0.34,95% CI 0.15-0.74,P=0.007)与逆行支架植入失败有显著相关性。接受者操作特征曲线分析表明,最佳的 UWT 临界值为 3.2 mm(灵敏度为 60.6%,特异度为 83.3%):结论:UWT 升高和急性肾损伤是输尿管梗阻性结石患者进行紧急尿路减压的指征,也是逆行支架置入失败的预兆。这些患者可能受益于前期肾造瘘管插入术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Published by the Canadian Urological Association, the Canadian Urological Association Journal (CUAJ) released its first issue in March 2007, and was published four times that year under the guidance of founding editor (Editor Emeritus as of 2012), Dr. Laurence H. Klotz. In 2008, CUAJ became a bimonthly publication. As of 2013, articles have been published monthly, alternating between print and online-only versions (print issues are available in February, April, June, August, October, and December; online-only issues are produced in January, March, May, July, September, and November). In 2017, the journal launched an ahead-of-print publishing strategy, in which accepted manuscripts are published electronically on our website and cited on PubMed ahead of their official issue-based publication date. By significantly shortening the time to article availability, we offer our readers more flexibility in the way they engage with our content: as a continuous stream, or in a monthly “package,” or both. CUAJ covers a broad range of urological topics — oncology, pediatrics, transplantation, endourology, female urology, infertility, and more. We take pride in showcasing the work of some of Canada’s top investigators and providing our readers with the latest relevant evidence-based research, and on being the primary repository for major guidelines and other important practice recommendations. Our long-term vision is to become an essential destination for urology-based research, education, and advocacy for both physicians and patients, and to act as a springboard for discussions within the urologic community.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信