» Articles » PMID: 30219938

Percutaneous Nephrostomy Vs Ureteral Stent for Hydronephrosis Secondary to Ureteric Calculi: Impact on Spontaneous Stone Passage and Health-related Quality of Life-a Prospective Study

Overview
Journal Urolithiasis
Publisher Springer
Specialty Urology
Date 2018 Sep 17
PMID 30219938
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Ureteral calculi can be associated with urinary drainage blockage, requiring urinary diversion with percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) or retrograde ureteral stent (RUS). Currently no evidence exists to support the superiority of one method over the other. This study proposes to compare both approaches regarding the probability of spontaneous stone passage (SSP) and its effect on patient's quality of life (QoL). A prospective trial was carried out from July to October of 2017. 50 patients were selected with hydronephrosis secondary to ureteral stones requiring urgent urinary diversion and divided into two groups according to diversion technique: percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) or retrograde ureteral stent (RUS). The rate of SSP and QoL were evaluated. A PCN group (18 patients) and a RUS group (32 patients) were set. Stone size was higher in PCN (median 92 mm) than RUS (median 47 mm) (p = .012). The rate of SSP was 25% in RUS group and 38.9% in PCN. On the univariable analysis no statistical effect was found; however, when adjusted for stone size, location, previous ureteral manipulation and expulsive therapy, PCN showed a significant higher chance of SSP than RUS (OR = 6667). Besides, it was found that 30.2% (n = 13) of stones had an upward displacement associated with retrograde endoscopy. A significant decrease between pre- and post-intervention QoL was found with RUS (p < .001), but not found with PCN (p = .206). Patients in RUS group experienced more urinary symptoms, mostly haematuria (68.7% vs 16.7% in PCN group < .001) and dysuria (78.3% vs 16.7% in PCN group, p < .001). PCN was associated with a higher rate of spontaneous stone passage when adjusted for stone size and location. Moreover, PCN was better tolerated and associated with fewer urinary symptoms when compared with RUS.

Citing Articles

Microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the treatment of 1-2 cm high hardness single upper ureteral stones: a propensity score-matched study.

Wang G, Pan T, Zhou Y, Dai X, Zhang Z, Li W Urolithiasis. 2024; 52(1):143.

PMID: 39402382 DOI: 10.1007/s00240-024-01641-9.


Percutaneous nephrostomy versus ureteral stent in hydronephrosis secondary to obstructive urolithiasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cardoso A, Coutinho A, Neto G, Anacleto S, Tinoco C, Morais N Asian J Urol. 2024; 11(2):261-270.

PMID: 38680594 PMC: 11053331. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2023.03.007.


Meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and safety of percutaneous nephrostomy retrograde ureteral stenting in the treatment of acute obstructive upper urinary tract infection.

Wang X, Wu G, Wang T, Liu S, Ding G, Mao Q Ther Adv Urol. 2024; 16:17562872241241854.

PMID: 38618182 PMC: 11010740. DOI: 10.1177/17562872241241854.


Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of single upper ureteral calculi measuring 1 to 2 centimeters: a retrospective study.

He Q, Wei X, Wu E, Luo R, Yu L, Liang W BMC Urol. 2024; 24(1):23.

PMID: 38281932 PMC: 10822141. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-024-01408-9.


Retrograde ureteral catheterization under local anesthesia for emergency drainage in patients with infection and hydronephrosis secondary to ureteral calculi: Experience from a tertiary care hospital.

Hsu C, Young W, Wu S Tzu Chi Med J. 2023; 35(4):317-321.

PMID: 38035064 PMC: 10683527. DOI: 10.4103/tcmj.tcmj_11_23.


References
1.
Leibovici D, Cooper A, Lindner A, Ostrowsky R, Kleinmann J, Velikanov S . Ureteral stents: morbidity and impact on quality of life. Isr Med Assoc J. 2005; 7(8):491-4. View

2.
Goldsmith Z, Oredein-McCoy O, Gerber L, Banez L, Sopko D, Miller M . Emergent ureteric stent vs percutaneous nephrostomy for obstructive urolithiasis with sepsis: patterns of use and outcomes from a 15-year experience. BJU Int. 2013; 112(2):E122-8. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12161. View

3.
Pearle M, Pierce H, Miller G, Summa J, Mutz J, Petty B . Optimal method of urgent decompression of the collecting system for obstruction and infection due to ureteral calculi. J Urol. 1998; 160(4):1260-4. View

4.
Jendeberg J, Geijer H, Alshamari M, Cierzniak B, Liden M . Size matters: The width and location of a ureteral stone accurately predict the chance of spontaneous passage. Eur Radiol. 2017; 27(11):4775-4785. PMC: 5635101. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4852-6. View

5.
Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos D . Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Rev Urol. 2010; 12(2-3):e86-96. PMC: 2931286. View