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: We performed a literature search on 12 September 2023 through PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus. The analysis included observational studies that examined the perioperative and long-term outcomes of patients with a KT who underwent RAPN with NIRF.
RESULTS: Overall, eight prospective studies, involving 535 patients, were eligible for this meta-analysis, with 212 participants in the ICG group and 323 in the No ICG group. For warm ischemia time, the ICG group showed a lower duration (weighted Mean difference (WMD) = -2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -3.30--0.80, p = 0.011). The postoperative eGFR also favored the ICG group (WMD = 7.67, 95% CI = 2.88-12.46, p = 0.002). No difference emerged for the other perioperative outcomes between the two groups. In terms of oncological radicality, the positive surgical margins and tumor recurrence rates were similar among the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis showed that NIRF with ICG during RAPN yields a favorable impact on functional outcomes, whereas it exerts no such influence on oncological aspects. Therefore, NIRF should be adopted when preserving nephron function is a paramount concern.