Emergency Percutaneous Nephrostomy: Results and Complications

Lee, Won Jin; Patel, Uresh; Patel, Sachin; Pillari, George

doi:10.1016/s1051-0443(94)71470-6

Cited by 110 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[14,16] In our study 7 out of 11 patients with pulled out catheter were above the age of 50 years. Catheter block due to hemorrhage or debris were found in 10 (2.3%) patients that were managed by flushing with sterile normal saline.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dual Technique Percutaneous Nephrostomy: Experience from a Tertiary Care Centre

Naik¹

2018

jmscr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…[12] Success rate in most recent series under fluoroscopy guidance alone or in combination of USG and fluoroscopy ranges from 98 to 100%. [13,4,14,15] Success rate using USG only is 91-92%. [16,17] The lower success rate using USG alone may be due to difficulty in visualisation of guidewire and catheter.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dual Technique Percutaneous Nephrostomy: Experience from a Tertiary Care Centre

Naik¹

2018

jmscr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Lee et al reviewed their experience with emergency percutaneous nephrostomy in 160 patients (169 procedures), including 69 (43%) with an obstructed, infected system. (17) Tube placement was successful in 98% of patients but major complications occurred in 6%, including sepsis in patients not previously septic (3.6%) and hemorrhage requiring transfusion (2.4%). Minor complications occurred in 27.7% of patients and included catheter dislodgement (4.8%), extravasation/perforation (4.3%), pneumonia/atelectasis (1.8%), pleural effusion (1.2%), paralytic ileus (2.4%) and fever lasting longer than 6 hours (12.6%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Study of Percutaneous Nephrostomy Versus Dj Stenting in Infective Hydronephrosis in Calculous Disease

Rammohan¹,

K²,

K³

et al. 2015

jemds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE:To compare the outcome of percutaneous nephrostomy versus double J ureteral stenting in the management infective hydronephrosis in calculous disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS:From October 2012 to January 2014,40 patients of age 25-65 years with obstructing ureteral or renal pelvic stones with clinical signs of infection were underwent decompression by double J stenting(20 patients) or percutaneous nephrostomy (20 patients) in this study. Patients with single calculus of size less than or equal to 15mm with fever and white blood count (WBC) of 14000/ mm 3 or greater were included in this study. Calculus size greater than 15 mm, patients with bilateral or multiple calculi, pregnancy, ureteral or urethral stricture disease, uncorrected coagulopathy, Patients with solitary kidney were excluded from the study. Outcome parameters included time to achieve normal temperature and WBC of 11000 /mm 3 or less, and resolution of pyuria if present were analyzed in both group of patients. RESULTS: Majority of the patients were between 25 to 65 years of age with male to female ratio was2.12:2.87.The most common location of stone was at distal ureter in either group. There was no significant difference between pre procedural WBC count, maximum temperature and stone size in either group. Procedura land fluoroscopy times were significantly shorter for double j stenting (30.95±6.02 and5.3±3.2) compared with percutaneous nephrostomy (35.9± 5.4 and7.2± 4.2). During drainage the appearance of the urine was grossly purulent in 5 patients (12.5%), turbid in 19 (47.5%) and clear in 16 (40%). Overall urine cultures and blood cultures were positive in 50 and 12.5% of patients, respectively. Urine cultures were positive in 60% of the percutaneous nephrostomy compared with 40% of the double j stenting group (p not significant). There was no significant difference in time to clinical improvement (Time to normal WBC and temperature and time for purulent drain to clear) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in the efficacy of relieving obstruction/symptoms in either procedure. We feel the choice of choosing a particular procedure depends on site of stone and degree of proximal obstruction. However prior PCN facilitates easier PCNL.

show abstract

“…Major complications can be classified into three types: Severe bleeding (hemorrhage) [482, 502 -504], injury to adjacent structures (such as pleural involvement, colonic perforation) [482,502,505] and severe infection/sepsis [481,506,507]. The incidence of major complications ranges from 0 -8 % [476,491,508,509].…”

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2016

Ultraschall in Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emergency Percutaneous Nephrostomy: Results and Complications

Cited by 110 publications

References 14 publications

Dual Technique Percutaneous Nephrostomy: Experience from a Tertiary Care Centre

Dual Technique Percutaneous Nephrostomy: Experience from a Tertiary Care Centre

A Comparative Study of Percutaneous Nephrostomy Versus Dj Stenting in Infective Hydronephrosis in Calculous Disease

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About