早期输尿管镜治疗尿脓毒症合并输尿管结石是一种安全的方法。一项初步研究

G. Astroza, Miguel Sarras, J. Salvadó, Alejandro Majerson, R. Neira, J. Domínguez
{"title":"早期输尿管镜治疗尿脓毒症合并输尿管结石是一种安全的方法。一项初步研究","authors":"G. Astroza, Miguel Sarras, J. Salvadó, Alejandro Majerson, R. Neira, J. Domínguez","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2019.1890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Emergency drainage of the urinary tract is the first necessary approach in patients with urosepsis secondary to obstructive ureteral calculi. The appropriate waiting time before definitive treatment has not been determined. We hypothesized that early ureteroscopic treatment after the patient has been stabilized is as safe as deferred treatment. Material and methods A pilot study was developed between November 2013 and September 2017. Patients with urosepsis associated with ureteral calculi were included. All the patients were initially decompressed with a ureteral stent. Patients were randomized to early ureteroscopic treatment (EUT), who received definitive treatment during the initial hospitalization, or deferred ureteroscopic treatment (DUT), that received definitive treatment in a second hospitalization. The stone location and size, sex distribution, age, APACHE II score, length of hospital stay, days with ureteral catheter and complications were registered. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 12.0. Results A total of 13 patients were included in the EUT group and 13 in the DUT group. No differences in sex distribution, stone location, APACHE II score, age, stone size and time between admission and urinary drainage were found. Total length of hospital stay and complications were also similar between both groups. A statistically significant difference was found in terms of duration of antibiotic treatment (p = 0.04) and total days with double J catheter (p = 0.0009). Conclusions EUT for ureteral stone is as safe as DUT in patients admitted with urosepsis secondary to ureterolithiasis. EUT is associated with a shorter period of ureteral stent and it is not associated with an increase in complications.","PeriodicalId":86295,"journal":{"name":"Urologia polska","volume":"72 1","pages":"163 - 168"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early ureteroscopic treatment in patients with urosepsis associated with ureteral calculi is a safe approach. A pilot study\",\"authors\":\"G. Astroza, Miguel Sarras, J. Salvadó, Alejandro Majerson, R. Neira, J. Domínguez\",\"doi\":\"10.5173/ceju.2019.1890\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction Emergency drainage of the urinary tract is the first necessary approach in patients with urosepsis secondary to obstructive ureteral calculi. The appropriate waiting time before definitive treatment has not been determined. We hypothesized that early ureteroscopic treatment after the patient has been stabilized is as safe as deferred treatment. Material and methods A pilot study was developed between November 2013 and September 2017. Patients with urosepsis associated with ureteral calculi were included. All the patients were initially decompressed with a ureteral stent. Patients were randomized to early ureteroscopic treatment (EUT), who received definitive treatment during the initial hospitalization, or deferred ureteroscopic treatment (DUT), that received definitive treatment in a second hospitalization. The stone location and size, sex distribution, age, APACHE II score, length of hospital stay, days with ureteral catheter and complications were registered. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 12.0. Results A total of 13 patients were included in the EUT group and 13 in the DUT group. No differences in sex distribution, stone location, APACHE II score, age, stone size and time between admission and urinary drainage were found. Total length of hospital stay and complications were also similar between both groups. A statistically significant difference was found in terms of duration of antibiotic treatment (p = 0.04) and total days with double J catheter (p = 0.0009). Conclusions EUT for ureteral stone is as safe as DUT in patients admitted with urosepsis secondary to ureterolithiasis. EUT is associated with a shorter period of ureteral stent and it is not associated with an increase in complications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":86295,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urologia polska\",\"volume\":\"72 1\",\"pages\":\"163 - 168\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urologia polska\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2019.1890\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia polska","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2019.1890","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

引言急诊尿路引流是治疗梗阻性输尿管结石并发尿脓毒症的首选方法。最终治疗前的适当等待时间尚未确定。我们假设患者病情稳定后的早期输尿管镜治疗与延期治疗一样安全。材料和方法2013年11月至2017年9月进行了一项试点研究。合并输尿管结石的尿脓毒症患者包括在内。所有患者最初均使用输尿管支架减压。患者被随机分为早期输尿管镜治疗(EUT)组和延期输尿管镜治疗组(DUT),前者在首次住院期间接受明确治疗,后者在第二次住院时接受明确治疗。记录结石的位置和大小、性别分布、年龄、APACHE II评分、住院时间、使用输尿管导管的天数和并发症。使用Stata 12.0进行统计分析。结果共有13名患者被纳入EUT组,13名被纳入DUT组。在性别分布、结石位置、APACHE II评分、年龄、结石大小以及入院和排尿之间的时间方面没有发现差异。两组患者的总住院时间和并发症也相似。在抗生素治疗的持续时间(p=0.04)和双J导管的总天数(p=0.0009)方面存在统计学上的显著差异。结论在输尿管结石继发尿脓毒症患者中,EUT治疗输尿管结石与DUT一样安全。EUT与较短时间的输尿管支架相关,与并发症的增加无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Early ureteroscopic treatment in patients with urosepsis associated with ureteral calculi is a safe approach. A pilot study
Introduction Emergency drainage of the urinary tract is the first necessary approach in patients with urosepsis secondary to obstructive ureteral calculi. The appropriate waiting time before definitive treatment has not been determined. We hypothesized that early ureteroscopic treatment after the patient has been stabilized is as safe as deferred treatment. Material and methods A pilot study was developed between November 2013 and September 2017. Patients with urosepsis associated with ureteral calculi were included. All the patients were initially decompressed with a ureteral stent. Patients were randomized to early ureteroscopic treatment (EUT), who received definitive treatment during the initial hospitalization, or deferred ureteroscopic treatment (DUT), that received definitive treatment in a second hospitalization. The stone location and size, sex distribution, age, APACHE II score, length of hospital stay, days with ureteral catheter and complications were registered. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 12.0. Results A total of 13 patients were included in the EUT group and 13 in the DUT group. No differences in sex distribution, stone location, APACHE II score, age, stone size and time between admission and urinary drainage were found. Total length of hospital stay and complications were also similar between both groups. A statistically significant difference was found in terms of duration of antibiotic treatment (p = 0.04) and total days with double J catheter (p = 0.0009). Conclusions EUT for ureteral stone is as safe as DUT in patients admitted with urosepsis secondary to ureterolithiasis. EUT is associated with a shorter period of ureteral stent and it is not associated with an increase in complications.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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