Primary versus deferred ureteroscopy for management of calculus anuria: a prospective randomized study

Obstructive anuria can be managed by primary ureteroscopy (URS) or deferred URS after initial ureteral stenting. We want to compare the primary URS and deferred URS in the management of calculus anuria regarding the feasibility and clinical outcome. Between January 2012 and December 2014, 150 patien...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Central European journal of urology 2018-01, Vol.71 (4), p.462-466
Hauptverfasser: Elderwy, Ahmad A, Gadelmoula, Mohamed, Elgammal, Mohammed A, Hameed, Diaa A, Behnsawy, Hosny M, Osman, Mahmoud M, Kurkar, Adel
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 466
container_issue 4
container_start_page 462
container_title Central European journal of urology
container_volume 71
creator Elderwy, Ahmad A
Gadelmoula, Mohamed
Elgammal, Mohammed A
Hameed, Diaa A
Behnsawy, Hosny M
Osman, Mahmoud M
Kurkar, Adel
description Obstructive anuria can be managed by primary ureteroscopy (URS) or deferred URS after initial ureteral stenting. We want to compare the primary URS and deferred URS in the management of calculus anuria regarding the feasibility and clinical outcome. Between January 2012 and December 2014, 150 patients with anuria due to ureteral calculi were prospectively randomized according to the timing of ureteroscopic intervention into two groups; deferred URS group (69 patients who were treated initially by ureteral stenting) and primary URS group (81 patients who were treated by emergency URS). Follow-up was at least 6 months postoperatively. Complete stone clearance was 87 % and 75.3% for deferred and primary URS groups, respectively (p = 0.097). Renal function normalized in 94.2% of deferred URS vs. 97.5% of primary URS (p = 0.414). Deferred URS group had a 2.9 % overall complication rate in comparison to 9.9 % for the primary URS group (p = 0.109). Ureteral perforation/pyelonephritis was noted in 6.2% of the primary URS group only (p = 0.043). The median number of maneuvers required until stone clearance was one (range 1-5) for primary URS vs. two (range 2-3) for deferred URS (p
doi_str_mv 10.5173/ceju.2018.1768
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6338810</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2172622367</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-6b1c78891098455eb102a64ab07136af6e28e2e647fcdf8a959ba218e54219063</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkc1r3DAQxUVpaEKSa49F0Esvu9WXZbmHQgltEwikh_YsxvIo9WJbrmQtbP76ymy6tJ3LDOg3j3l6hLzmbFvxWr53uMtbwbjZ8lqbF-RCMMM2ytTy5Wlm-pxcp7RjpbRRuqpekXNZRiaUuCD-W-xHiAe6x5hyoh16jBE7miMuGENyYT5QHyIdYYJHHHFaaPDUweDyUBZgyrGHDxToXOgZ3dLvkUaYujD2T0UoLbk7XJEzD0PC6-d-SX58-fz95nZz__D17ubT_cYpbpaNbrmrjWk4a4yqKmw5E6AVtKzmUoPXKAwK1Kr2rvMGmqppQXCDlRK8YVpeko9H3Tm3I3auXBthsPPRpA3Q239fpv6nfQx7q6U0hrMi8O5ZIIZfGdNixz45HAaYMORkBa8bpWSjRUHf_ofuQo5TsbdSQgshdV2o7ZFy5XtSRH86hjO7pmjXFO2aol1TLAtv_rZwwv9kJn8DaQ6aYw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2172622367</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Primary versus deferred ureteroscopy for management of calculus anuria: a prospective randomized study</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Elderwy, Ahmad A ; Gadelmoula, Mohamed ; Elgammal, Mohammed A ; Hameed, Diaa A ; Behnsawy, Hosny M ; Osman, Mahmoud M ; Kurkar, Adel</creator><creatorcontrib>Elderwy, Ahmad A ; Gadelmoula, Mohamed ; Elgammal, Mohammed A ; Hameed, Diaa A ; Behnsawy, Hosny M ; Osman, Mahmoud M ; Kurkar, Adel</creatorcontrib><description>Obstructive anuria can be managed by primary ureteroscopy (URS) or deferred URS after initial ureteral stenting. We want to compare the primary URS and deferred URS in the management of calculus anuria regarding the feasibility and clinical outcome. Between January 2012 and December 2014, 150 patients with anuria due to ureteral calculi were prospectively randomized according to the timing of ureteroscopic intervention into two groups; deferred URS group (69 patients who were treated initially by ureteral stenting) and primary URS group (81 patients who were treated by emergency URS). Follow-up was at least 6 months postoperatively. Complete stone clearance was 87 % and 75.3% for deferred and primary URS groups, respectively (p = 0.097). Renal function normalized in 94.2% of deferred URS vs. 97.5% of primary URS (p = 0.414). Deferred URS group had a 2.9 % overall complication rate in comparison to 9.9 % for the primary URS group (p = 0.109). Ureteral perforation/pyelonephritis was noted in 6.2% of the primary URS group only (p = 0.043). The median number of maneuvers required until stone clearance was one (range 1-5) for primary URS vs. two (range 2-3) for deferred URS (p &lt;0.001). The cost of primary URS was significantly less (p &lt;0.001). On a multivariate analysis, lower ureteral calculi (OR 13.03, 95% CI 4.07- 41.7, p &lt;0.001) and deferred URS (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.07-7.49, p = 0.035) were independent predictors for an eventless and successful URS. Primary URS for calculus anuria is feasible and cost-effective. It has a short hospital stay, but is still technically demanding. The perioperative complications are comparable to URS in normouric patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2080-4806</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2080-4873</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2080-4873</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2018.1768</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30680242</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Poland: Polish Urological Association</publisher><subject>Costs ; Endoscopy ; Laboratories ; Lasers ; Lithotripsy ; Original Paper ; Patients ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Urology</subject><ispartof>Central European journal of urology, 2018-01, Vol.71 (4), p.462-466</ispartof><rights>Copyright Polish Urological Association 2018</rights><rights>Copyright by Polish Urological Association 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-6b1c78891098455eb102a64ab07136af6e28e2e647fcdf8a959ba218e54219063</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6338810/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6338810/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,886,27929,27930,53796,53798</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30680242$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Elderwy, Ahmad A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gadelmoula, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elgammal, Mohammed A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hameed, Diaa A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Behnsawy, Hosny M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osman, Mahmoud M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurkar, Adel</creatorcontrib><title>Primary versus deferred ureteroscopy for management of calculus anuria: a prospective randomized study</title><title>Central European journal of urology</title><addtitle>Cent European J Urol</addtitle><description>Obstructive anuria can be managed by primary ureteroscopy (URS) or deferred URS after initial ureteral stenting. We want to compare the primary URS and deferred URS in the management of calculus anuria regarding the feasibility and clinical outcome. Between January 2012 and December 2014, 150 patients with anuria due to ureteral calculi were prospectively randomized according to the timing of ureteroscopic intervention into two groups; deferred URS group (69 patients who were treated initially by ureteral stenting) and primary URS group (81 patients who were treated by emergency URS). Follow-up was at least 6 months postoperatively. Complete stone clearance was 87 % and 75.3% for deferred and primary URS groups, respectively (p = 0.097). Renal function normalized in 94.2% of deferred URS vs. 97.5% of primary URS (p = 0.414). Deferred URS group had a 2.9 % overall complication rate in comparison to 9.9 % for the primary URS group (p = 0.109). Ureteral perforation/pyelonephritis was noted in 6.2% of the primary URS group only (p = 0.043). The median number of maneuvers required until stone clearance was one (range 1-5) for primary URS vs. two (range 2-3) for deferred URS (p &lt;0.001). The cost of primary URS was significantly less (p &lt;0.001). On a multivariate analysis, lower ureteral calculi (OR 13.03, 95% CI 4.07- 41.7, p &lt;0.001) and deferred URS (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.07-7.49, p = 0.035) were independent predictors for an eventless and successful URS. Primary URS for calculus anuria is feasible and cost-effective. It has a short hospital stay, but is still technically demanding. The perioperative complications are comparable to URS in normouric patients.</description><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Lasers</subject><subject>Lithotripsy</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Urology</subject><issn>2080-4806</issn><issn>2080-4873</issn><issn>2080-4873</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkc1r3DAQxUVpaEKSa49F0Esvu9WXZbmHQgltEwikh_YsxvIo9WJbrmQtbP76ymy6tJ3LDOg3j3l6hLzmbFvxWr53uMtbwbjZ8lqbF-RCMMM2ytTy5Wlm-pxcp7RjpbRRuqpekXNZRiaUuCD-W-xHiAe6x5hyoh16jBE7miMuGENyYT5QHyIdYYJHHHFaaPDUweDyUBZgyrGHDxToXOgZ3dLvkUaYujD2T0UoLbk7XJEzD0PC6-d-SX58-fz95nZz__D17ubT_cYpbpaNbrmrjWk4a4yqKmw5E6AVtKzmUoPXKAwK1Kr2rvMGmqppQXCDlRK8YVpeko9H3Tm3I3auXBthsPPRpA3Q239fpv6nfQx7q6U0hrMi8O5ZIIZfGdNixz45HAaYMORkBa8bpWSjRUHf_ofuQo5TsbdSQgshdV2o7ZFy5XtSRH86hjO7pmjXFO2aol1TLAtv_rZwwv9kJn8DaQ6aYw</recordid><startdate>20180101</startdate><enddate>20180101</enddate><creator>Elderwy, Ahmad A</creator><creator>Gadelmoula, Mohamed</creator><creator>Elgammal, Mohammed A</creator><creator>Hameed, Diaa A</creator><creator>Behnsawy, Hosny M</creator><creator>Osman, Mahmoud M</creator><creator>Kurkar, Adel</creator><general>Polish Urological Association</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BYOGL</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180101</creationdate><title>Primary versus deferred ureteroscopy for management of calculus anuria: a prospective randomized study</title><author>Elderwy, Ahmad A ; Gadelmoula, Mohamed ; Elgammal, Mohammed A ; Hameed, Diaa A ; Behnsawy, Hosny M ; Osman, Mahmoud M ; Kurkar, Adel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c418t-6b1c78891098455eb102a64ab07136af6e28e2e647fcdf8a959ba218e54219063</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Lasers</topic><topic>Lithotripsy</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Elderwy, Ahmad A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gadelmoula, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elgammal, Mohammed A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hameed, Diaa A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Behnsawy, Hosny M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osman, Mahmoud M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurkar, Adel</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>East Europe, Central Europe Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Central European journal of urology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Elderwy, Ahmad A</au><au>Gadelmoula, Mohamed</au><au>Elgammal, Mohammed A</au><au>Hameed, Diaa A</au><au>Behnsawy, Hosny M</au><au>Osman, Mahmoud M</au><au>Kurkar, Adel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Primary versus deferred ureteroscopy for management of calculus anuria: a prospective randomized study</atitle><jtitle>Central European journal of urology</jtitle><addtitle>Cent European J Urol</addtitle><date>2018-01-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>71</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>462</spage><epage>466</epage><pages>462-466</pages><issn>2080-4806</issn><issn>2080-4873</issn><eissn>2080-4873</eissn><abstract>Obstructive anuria can be managed by primary ureteroscopy (URS) or deferred URS after initial ureteral stenting. We want to compare the primary URS and deferred URS in the management of calculus anuria regarding the feasibility and clinical outcome. Between January 2012 and December 2014, 150 patients with anuria due to ureteral calculi were prospectively randomized according to the timing of ureteroscopic intervention into two groups; deferred URS group (69 patients who were treated initially by ureteral stenting) and primary URS group (81 patients who were treated by emergency URS). Follow-up was at least 6 months postoperatively. Complete stone clearance was 87 % and 75.3% for deferred and primary URS groups, respectively (p = 0.097). Renal function normalized in 94.2% of deferred URS vs. 97.5% of primary URS (p = 0.414). Deferred URS group had a 2.9 % overall complication rate in comparison to 9.9 % for the primary URS group (p = 0.109). Ureteral perforation/pyelonephritis was noted in 6.2% of the primary URS group only (p = 0.043). The median number of maneuvers required until stone clearance was one (range 1-5) for primary URS vs. two (range 2-3) for deferred URS (p &lt;0.001). The cost of primary URS was significantly less (p &lt;0.001). On a multivariate analysis, lower ureteral calculi (OR 13.03, 95% CI 4.07- 41.7, p &lt;0.001) and deferred URS (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.07-7.49, p = 0.035) were independent predictors for an eventless and successful URS. Primary URS for calculus anuria is feasible and cost-effective. It has a short hospital stay, but is still technically demanding. The perioperative complications are comparable to URS in normouric patients.</abstract><cop>Poland</cop><pub>Polish Urological Association</pub><pmid>30680242</pmid><doi>10.5173/ceju.2018.1768</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2080-4806
ispartof Central European journal of urology, 2018-01, Vol.71 (4), p.462-466
issn 2080-4806
2080-4873
2080-4873
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6338810
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; PubMed Central
subjects Costs
Endoscopy
Laboratories
Lasers
Lithotripsy
Original Paper
Patients
Ultrasonic imaging
Urology
title Primary versus deferred ureteroscopy for management of calculus anuria: a prospective randomized study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-12T04%3A36%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Primary%20versus%20deferred%20ureteroscopy%20for%20management%20of%20calculus%20anuria:%20a%20prospective%20randomized%20study&rft.jtitle=Central%20European%20journal%20of%20urology&rft.au=Elderwy,%20Ahmad%20A&rft.date=2018-01-01&rft.volume=71&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=462&rft.epage=466&rft.pages=462-466&rft.issn=2080-4806&rft.eissn=2080-4873&rft_id=info:doi/10.5173/ceju.2018.1768&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2172622367%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2172622367&rft_id=info:pmid/30680242&rfr_iscdi=true