METHODS: A qualitative study with purposive sampling was conducted using face-to-face semistructured interviews. A total of 20 participants from a tertiary general hospital in Kuantan, Malaysia, were recruited in this study. Data were analysed using framework analysis.
RESULTS: Two themes emerged from the analysis. The first theme explained the changes in the dietary practice of the participants postdiagnosis. The second theme revealed that the participants' dietary changes were greatly influenced by personal factors and external support from professionals, family and peers.
CONCLUSIONS: Urinary stone patients highlighted the fear of complications, self-determination and knowledge of nutrition as the main drivers of their dietary change postdiagnosis. Emphasising proper nutritional care by assessing and evaluating dietary self-management among patients can facilitate effective self-care in stone prevention management.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between June 2011 and May 2012, 20 patients with upper urinary tract stones were included in this prospective randomized study. The patients were assigned into the LESS group or CL group in a one-on-one manner using a random table. The clinical parameters were evaluated in the immediate postoperative period, and the stone clearance rate was evaluated via non-contrast computer tomography at one month postoperatively.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patient demographics or preoperative stone sizes between the two groups. The perioperative parameters, including operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain scores, length of hospital stay, and changes in renal function, were comparable. No transfusions or open conversions were required in either group. The incidence of residual stones was lower in the LESS group (1 case) than in the CL group (2 cases). However, this difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: For large and impacted upper ureteral stones, the effectiveness and safety of LESS were equivalent to those of CL. Further randomized control trials with larger sample sizes are needed to strengthen the conclusions of this study. .
METHODS: Clinico-epidemiological data of patients who underwent PCN and/or RUS in two institutions for calculi-related ureteric obstruction were retrospectively collected from January 2014 to December 2020.
RESULTS: 537 patients (244 patients in PCN group, 293 patients in RUS group) from both institutions were eligible for analysis based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients with PCN were generally older, had poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, and larger obstructive ureteral calculi compared to patients with RUS. Patients with PCN had longer durations of fever, the persistence of elevated total white cell and creatinine, and longer hospitalization stays compared with patients who had undergone RUS. RUS up-front has more unsuccessful interventions compared with PCN. There were no significant differences in the change in SOFA score postintervention between the two interventions. In multivariate analysis, the higher temperature just prior to the intervention (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 2.039, p = 0.003) and Cardiovascular SOFA score of 1 (adjusted OR:4.037, p = 0.012) were significant independent prognostic factors for the development of septic shock postdecompression of ureteral obstruction.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals that both interventions have similar overall risk of urosepsis, septic shock and mortality rate. Despite a marginally higher risk of failure, RUS should be considered in patients with lower procedural risk. Patients going for PCN should be counseled for a longer stay. Post-HDU/-ICU monitoring, inotrope support postdecompression should be considered for patients with elevated temperature within 1 h preintervention and cardiovascular SOFA score of 1.