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.
METHODS: A number of 6579 patients from the TOWER group registry were divided into pre-stented (group 1) and non-pre-stented groups (group 2). Patients aged ≥18 years old, with normal calyceal anatomy were enrolled. Patients with ureteric stones, anomalous kidneys, bilateral stones, planned for ECIRS were excluded.
RESULTS: Patients are homogeneously distributed in both groups (3112 vs. 3467). The predominant indication for pre-stenting was symptom relief. Overall stone size was comparable, whilst group 1 had a significantly more multiple (1419 vs. 1283, P<0.001) and lower-pole (LP) stones (1503 vs. 1411, P<0.001). The mean operative time for group 2 was significantly longer (68.17 vs. 58.92, P<0.001). Stone size, LP stones, age, recurrence and multiple stones are contributing factors for residual fragments at the multivariable analysis. The incidence of postoperative day 1 fever and sepsis was significantly higher in group 2, indicating that pre-stenting is associated with a lower risk of post-RIRS infection and a lower overall complications rate (13.62% vs. 15.89%) (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: RIRS without pre-stenting can be considered safe without significant morbidity. Multiple, lower-pole and large stone is a significant contributor towards residual fragments. Patients who were not pre-stented had significantly higher but low-grade complications, especially for lower pole and large volume stones. While we do not advocate routine pre-stenting, a tailored approach for these patients should include proper counselling regarding pre-stenting.