[Management of ureteral obstruction : Value of percutaneous nephrostomy and ureteral stents]

A misplacement of a ureteral stent into the abdominal aorta: a case report of a rare retrograde ureteral stenting complication

Background

Cervical cancer is often associated with malignant ureteral obstruction and consequent hydronephrosis. Hydronephrosis caused in this way can be resolved by placing ureteral stents or performing a percutaneous nephrostomy. Complications that may occur during the retrograde ureteral stent placement are usually mild, but serious complications such as stent migration into the cardiovascular system are also possible. Here we present an unusual case where a ureteral stent entered the abdominal aorta during the cystoscopic ureteral stenting, which was resolved by a cystoscopic stent removal kept in check by endovascular catheters.

Case presentations

The 48-year-old female patient was treated in the regional secondary healthcare facility due to bilateral hydronephrosis caused by cervical cancer. The patient had bilateral percutaneous nephrostomies and ureteral stents. Due to the calcification of the left ureteral stent, an urethrorenoscopy with lithotripsy of the calculus in the left ureter was performed in the regional secondary healthcare facility, and the ureteral stent was cystoscopically replaced. The control radiography of the urinary tract showed a misplacement of the left ureteral stent, and a computed tomography showed that the stent was located in the abdominal aorta. The patient was referred to the University Clinical Center of Serbia, where a ureteral stent was cystoscopically removed from the abdominal aorta under the control of endovascular catheters. The patient was in good general condition at all times, with no signs of bleeding, and she was discharged from the hospital on the fourth postoperative day.

Conclusions

The migration of a ureteral stent into the abdominal aorta and the cardiovascular system in general is a rare type of ureteral stenting complication whose treatment requires a multidisciplinary approach. In order to prevent such complications, it is necessary to strictly adhere to the indications for the ureteral stent placement in the case of malignant ureteral obstruction. Also, this procedure should be performed according to the current guidelines and controlled by an X-ray or ultrasound.

Which is the best way for patients with ureteral obstruction? Percutaneous nephrostomy versus double J stenting

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) and Double J stenting (DJS) are the 2 main treatment options of ureteral obstruction. We evaluate which of these 2 methods is superior concerning the course of procedure, postoperative complication and quality of life.

METHODS

A detailed review of electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure up to February 21st, 2021 was searched. Continuous data were evaluated using mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), while nominal data were analyzed by risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Meanwhile, we performed the subgroup analysis based on study design, disease type, sample size, sepsis, DJ diameter, nephrostomy diameter, anesthesia type and guidance under X-ray or ultrasound.

RESULTS

There were 18 previous studies included in current study. As a result, we found that there were significant differences in fluoroscopy time (MD = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14-0.48, P < .001) and hospital stay (MD = 1.23; 95% CI, 0.60-1.85, P < .001). However, no statistic difference was detected in operative time (MD = 5.40; 95% CI, -1.78 to 12.58, P = .140) between the paired groups. Although DJS showed a higher rate of postoperative complications (25.19% vs 17.61%), there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications following DJS and PCN (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.60-1.43; P = .720). Based on the EuroQol analysis, the 2 main treatment options had different impacts on quality of life. The pooled results showed that PCN patients reported more difficulties in self-care compared to DJS patients (RR = 3.07; 95% CI, 1.32-7.14; P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

DJS is a safe and better method of temporary urinary diversion than PCN for management of ureteral obstruction with shorter fluoroscopy time and hospital stay. As for quality of life, patients receiving PCN had a distinct difficulty in self-care compared to those receiving DJS. However, these 2 treatment options often depends on the individual situation.

[Comparison of catheter-associated quality of life in external urinary diversion: nephrostomy vs. suprapubic catheter]

Einleitung

Die katheterbezogene Lebensqualität (LQ) bei Nephrostomieträgern wurde bisher noch nie systematisch untersucht. Dies sollte nun erstmalig vergleichend mit einer ebenfalls externen Urinableitung, dem suprapubischen Katheter, geschehen.

Methodik

Das die katheterbezogene LQ untersuchende Assessment nach Mary Wilde wurde bei Patienten mit perkutaner Nephrostomie (PCN) in lebenslanger Intention und minimaler Liegedauer von 3 Monaten vorgelegt.

Ergebnisse

Es zeigte sich insgesamt bei 66 Patienten (davon 42 mit unilateraler PCN) mit einem Punktwert von median 4,0 auf einer Skala von 0–5 eine nur moderat eingeschränkte katheterbezogene LQ. Diese wurde insgesamt und in allen Domänen schlechter als bei Patienten mit suprapubischem Katheter (SPK) bewertet, bei denen sich ein Score von 4,3 im Median fand. Signifikant waren die Unterschiede in den Einzelitems „Gefühl der Erniedrigung“, „Konflikte mit ärztlichem oder pflegerischem Personal“, „Angst vor schmerzhaften Katheterwechseln“, „Gefühl als kranke Person“, „Behinderungen in Aktivitäten des täglichen Lebens“ und „Besorgnis, nicht alles tun zu können, was ich mag“. Ebenso ergaben sich bei PCN-Trägern signifikant häufiger Angst vor Katheterlecks und Uringeruch. Die Anzahl der einliegenden PCN und die Grunderkrankung spielten für die Beurteilung der LQ keine Rolle.

Schlussfolgerung

Erstmals wurde die katheterassoziierte LQ, die sich bei PCN-Trägern nur moderat eingeschränkt fand, mit einem validierten Assessment quantitativ eingeordnet. Die Angabe der Betroffenen, sich als „krank“ und in der Ausübung von Aktivitäten des täglichen Lebens „behindert“ zu fühlen und die Angst vor Urinleckagen und schmerzhaften Wechseln sollten Ansporn für eine sorgfältige Indikationsstellung und technisch korrekte Katheterwechsel sein.

Percutaneous nephrostomy versus retrograde ureteral stenting for acute upper obstructive uropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Acute obstructive uropathy is associated with significant morbidity among patients with any condition that leads to urinary tract obstruction. Immediate urinary diversion is necessary to prevent further damage to the kidneys. In many centres, the two main treatment options include percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) and retrograde ureteral stenting (RUS). The purpose of this study if to compare the efficacy and safety of PCN and RUS for the treatment of acute obstructive uropathy. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the reference lists of included studies to identify any additional trials. We included randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing the outcomes of clinical improvement (septic parameters), hospitalisation duration, quality of life, urinary-related symptoms, failure rates, post-procedural pain [measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS)] and analgesics use. We conducted statistical analyses using random effects models and expressed the results as risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Seven trials were identified that included 667 patients. Meta-analysis of the data revealed no difference in the two methods in improvement of septic parameters, quality of life, failure rates, post-procedural pain (VAS), or analgesics use. Patients receiving PCN had lower rates of haematuria and dysuria post-operatively and longer hospitalisation duration than those receiving RUS. PCN and RUS are effective for the decompression of an obstructed urinary system, with no significant difference in most outcomes. However, PCN is preferable to RUS because of its reduced impact on the patient's post-operative quality of life due to haematuria and dysuria, although it is associated with slightly longer hospitalisation duration.

Morbidity and long-term results of subcutaneous pyelovesical bypass in chronic ureteral obstruction

BACKGROUND

We present the long-term results and complications of the DETOUR® prosthesis, a permanent subcutaneous pyelovesical bypass for the treatment of ureteral obstruction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2006 et 2018, 34 prosthesis were implanted in 28 patients (mean age 65,8 years) with ureteral obstruction of malignant or benign etiologies. The prosthesis, composed to an inner tube of silicone and an outer tube of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, is placed subcutaneously between the kidney and the bladder. We are performed infrared spectrophotometry and scanning electron microscopy on two removed prostheses to explore the prosthetic encrustation.

RESULTS

The average follow-up was 25,8 months (Maximum: 64 months). Stent revision was required for early bladder fistula in three patients. The major long-term complications were infection (46%), obstruction (3 patients) and bladder fistula (7 patients). The most frequently infection are non-severe, but two patients died from septic shock after fungic colonization of the prosthesis. The infrared spectrophotometry and scanning electron microscopy analysis showed that the obstruction was favored by urinary infection and an alkaline medium. The functional prosthesis rate at 1,2 and 3 years was 94%, 71% and 62%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The DETOUR® subcutaneous extra-anatomical urinary bypass is an effective and minimally invasive alternative to permanent percutaneous nephrostomy, for both malignant and benign ureteral obstructions in selected patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Survival outcomes of patients with cervical cancer and accompanying hydronephrosis: A systematic review of the literature

Hydronephrosis is a sign of advanced stage disease in patients with cervical cancer. Its presence is believed to negatively affect the survival of patients. To date, however, consensus in this field is still lacking. The purpose of the present systematic review is to gather the available data and to provide directions for future research in the field. We systematically searched Medline, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRA and Google Scholar databases from inception till June 2018. Overall, 22 studies were included in the present systematic review that evaluated outcomes from 8521 patients with cervical cancer. The findings of our systematic review support that hydronephrosis negatively affects the overall survival of cervical cancer patients. Specifically, the reported 5- year OS hazards ratio for hydronephrosis ranged between 1.34 and 3.74. Outcomes concerning the disease-free survival of these patients were, however, less discrete. None of the included studies reported whether the decreased survival of patients with hydronephrosis was attributed to complications of obstructive uropathy such as uremia and sepsis. Thus, it remains, to date, unclear whether placement of ureteral stents or percutaneous nephrostomy may actually benefit these patients. More studies are needed to evaluate the actual impact of hydronephrosis on survival rates at the various stages of cervical cancer and to help establish consensus regarding the optimal mode of management of these patients.

["We're going to place a ureteral stent …" : Development and use of the terms stent and splint by German-speaking urologists]

The use of eponyms has a long history in medicine. But it is a rare case that a term not associated with a procedure or an anatomical description has come into use. The terms "stent" and "splint" in German and English used as a verb and a noun are a typical example. The coronary stent was named after Charles Thomas Stent (1807-1885). Charles Theodore Dotter (1920-1985) was the one who introduced the eponym into the literature of angiography in 1983. The change in urology occurred after an article of Willard Goodwin especially in the English literature but did not come into constant use in the German language.