[30] Outcomes of emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone

Objective: To compare the results of emergency vs elective ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of a single ureteric stone. Methods: We prospectively constructed a database for patients who underwent URS in the Al-Amiri Hospital from March 2015 through December 2017. Inclusion criteria were adult pa...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Majd Alkabbani, Ahmed R. EL-Nahas, Meshari Almutairi, Zenab Shehab, Tariq F. Al-Shaiji, Shabir Almousawi, Abdullatif Al-Terki
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Taylor & Francis Group 2018
Materias:	Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology RC870-923
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/fbbc27b0d5a84e5886fba9b78692e206
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:fbbc27b0d5a84e5886fba9b78692e206
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:fbbc27b0d5a84e5886fba9b78692e2062021-12-02T12:36:26Z[30] Outcomes of emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone2090-598X10.1016/j.aju.2018.10.077https://doaj.org/article/fbbc27b0d5a84e5886fba9b78692e2062018-11-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090598X18301712https://doaj.org/toc/2090-598XObjective: To compare the results of emergency vs elective ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of a single ureteric stone. Methods: We prospectively constructed a database for patients who underwent URS in the Al-Amiri Hospital from March 2015 through December 2017. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with a single ureteric stone diagnosed by computed tomography of the kidneys, ureters and bladder. Patients who had fever or ureteric stents were excluded. The emergency URS group (EM Group) included patients who presented to the emergency department with persistent renal colic and underwent emergency URS. The elective URS group (EL Group) included patients who underwent elective URS after admission through the outpatient appointment system. The technique for URS was the same in both groups. Safety was defined as absence of complications, whilst effectiveness was defined as stone-free rate after a single URS session. The chi-squared and t-test were used to compare the data of both groups. Results: The study included 124 patients with a mean (SD) age of 41.4 (12.6) years. The EM Group included 67 patients and the EL Group included 57 patients. Laser disintegration was needed in 48 patients (84%) in the EL Group and 43 (64%) in the EM Group (P = 0.012). Post-URS stents were placed in 43 patients (75.4%) in the EL Group and 60 (89.6) in the EM Group (P = 0.037). Complications were comparable (3.5% for the EL and 4.5% for EM groups, P = 0.785). Ureteric perforation in one patient in the EM Group was treated with a JJ stent. Sepsis in one patient in each group was treated with culture-sensitive antibiotics. Upper tract obstruction after removal of the ureteric catheter in one patient in the EL Group required a JJ stent. Haematuria in one patient in EM Group was treated with blood transfusion. Stone-free rates were comparable, 93% in the EL Group and 97% in the EM Group (P = 0.297). Conclusion: Emergency URS in selected cases can be as safe and effective as elective URS for treatment of a single ureteric stone.Majd AlkabbaniAhmed R. EL-NahasMeshari AlmutairiZenab ShehabTariq F. Al-ShaijiShabir AlmousawiAbdullatif Al-TerkiTaylor & Francis GrouparticleDiseases of the genitourinary system. UrologyRC870-923ENArab Journal of Urology, Vol 16, Iss , Pp S15- (2018)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology RC870-923
spellingShingle	Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology RC870-923 Majd Alkabbani Ahmed R. EL-Nahas Meshari Almutairi Zenab Shehab Tariq F. Al-Shaiji Shabir Almousawi Abdullatif Al-Terki [30] Outcomes of emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone
description	Objective: To compare the results of emergency vs elective ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of a single ureteric stone. Methods: We prospectively constructed a database for patients who underwent URS in the Al-Amiri Hospital from March 2015 through December 2017. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with a single ureteric stone diagnosed by computed tomography of the kidneys, ureters and bladder. Patients who had fever or ureteric stents were excluded. The emergency URS group (EM Group) included patients who presented to the emergency department with persistent renal colic and underwent emergency URS. The elective URS group (EL Group) included patients who underwent elective URS after admission through the outpatient appointment system. The technique for URS was the same in both groups. Safety was defined as absence of complications, whilst effectiveness was defined as stone-free rate after a single URS session. The chi-squared and t-test were used to compare the data of both groups. Results: The study included 124 patients with a mean (SD) age of 41.4 (12.6) years. The EM Group included 67 patients and the EL Group included 57 patients. Laser disintegration was needed in 48 patients (84%) in the EL Group and 43 (64%) in the EM Group (P = 0.012). Post-URS stents were placed in 43 patients (75.4%) in the EL Group and 60 (89.6) in the EM Group (P = 0.037). Complications were comparable (3.5% for the EL and 4.5% for EM groups, P = 0.785). Ureteric perforation in one patient in the EM Group was treated with a JJ stent. Sepsis in one patient in each group was treated with culture-sensitive antibiotics. Upper tract obstruction after removal of the ureteric catheter in one patient in the EL Group required a JJ stent. Haematuria in one patient in EM Group was treated with blood transfusion. Stone-free rates were comparable, 93% in the EL Group and 97% in the EM Group (P = 0.297). Conclusion: Emergency URS in selected cases can be as safe and effective as elective URS for treatment of a single ureteric stone.
format	article
author	Majd Alkabbani Ahmed R. EL-Nahas Meshari Almutairi Zenab Shehab Tariq F. Al-Shaiji Shabir Almousawi Abdullatif Al-Terki
author_facet	Majd Alkabbani Ahmed R. EL-Nahas Meshari Almutairi Zenab Shehab Tariq F. Al-Shaiji Shabir Almousawi Abdullatif Al-Terki
author_sort	Majd Alkabbani
title	[30] Outcomes of emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone
title_short	[30] Outcomes of emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone
title_full	[30] Outcomes of emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone
title_fullStr	[30] Outcomes of emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone
title_full_unstemmed	[30] Outcomes of emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone
title_sort	[30] outcomes of emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone
publisher	Taylor & Francis Group
publishDate	2018
url	https://doaj.org/article/fbbc27b0d5a84e5886fba9b78692e206
work_keys_str_mv	AT majdalkabbani 30outcomesofemergencyvselectiveureteroscopyforasingleuretericstone AT ahmedrelnahas 30outcomesofemergencyvselectiveureteroscopyforasingleuretericstone AT mesharialmutairi 30outcomesofemergencyvselectiveureteroscopyforasingleuretericstone AT zenabshehab 30outcomesofemergencyvselectiveureteroscopyforasingleuretericstone AT tariqfalshaiji 30outcomesofemergencyvselectiveureteroscopyforasingleuretericstone AT shabiralmousawi 30outcomesofemergencyvselectiveureteroscopyforasingleuretericstone AT abdullatifalterki 30outcomesofemergencyvselectiveureteroscopyforasingleuretericstone
_version_	1718393838042611712

[30] Outcomes of emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone

Ejemplares similares