Iatrogenic vascular complications of non-vascular percutaneous abdominal procedures

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to compile and present all of the reported vascular complications that resulted from common non-vascular abdominal procedures in the literature. Non-vascular procedures include, though are not limited to, percutaneous abscess/fluid collection drainage (PAD), percutaneous nephrostomy (PN), paracentesis, percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC)/percutaneous biliary drainage (PBD), percutaneous biliary stone removal, and percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PG)/percutaneous radiologic gastrojejunostomy (PG-J). By gathering this information, radiologists performing these procedures can be aware of the associated vascular injuries, as well as take steps to minimize risks.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted using the PubMed database to catalog relevant articles, published in the year 2000 onward, in which an iatrogenic vascular complication occurred from the following non-vascular abdominal procedures: PAD, PN, paracentesis, PTC/PBD, percutaneous biliary stone removal, and PG/PG-J. Biopsy and tumor ablation were deferred from this article.

RESULTS

214 studies met criteria for analysis. 28 patients died as a result of vascular complications from the analyzed non-vascular abdominal procedures. Vascular complications from paracentesis were responsible for 19 patient deaths, followed by four deaths from PTC/PBD, three from biliary stone removal, and two from PG.

CONCLUSION

Despite non-vascular percutaneous abdominal procedures being minimally invasive, vascular complications still can arise and be quite serious, even resulting in death. Through the presentation of vascular complications associated with these procedures, interventionalists can improve patient care by understanding the steps that can be taken to minimize these risks and to reduce complication rates.

Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of urolithiasis in geriatric patients - differences, similarities and caveats in comparison to the general population

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Purpose of the review is to address management and prevention of urolithiasis in elderly patients examining the dynamic interplay between general measures, dietary adjustments, lifestyle modifications, and targeted pharmacological and/ or surgical interventions. The goal is to provide understanding of the evolving strategies required for effective urolithiasis prevention in the geriatric population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Age-specific diagnostic considerations are necessary because urolithiasis in the elderly population is characterized by bigger stones, greater peri-operative risks, and heightened symptom severity. When comorbidities are present, conservative treatments - especially analgesia - provide difficulties. Surgical procedures prove to be safe and effective, with complication rates and practical application comparable to younger cohorts. Prevention approaches that include lifestyle changes and the investigation of novel pharmaceutical options such as sodium-dependent glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT-2)-inhibitors are promising in the management of urolithiasis in the elderly population.

SUMMARY

Our review offers a thorough investigation of urolithiasis in the elderly population, elucidating distinct clinical manifestations, complex diagnostic issues, and treatment implications. The safety and effectiveness of ureteroscopy in older patients, as well as the possible prophylactic function of SGLT-2-I, offer crucial insights for clinicians. Subsequent studies are necessary to enhance age-specific therapies, addressing the distinct obstacles presented by urolithiasis in the elderly population within this rapidly growing demographic.

Percutaneous Nephroureteral Stent Placement and Antegrade Forceps Biopsy of Ureteral Obstruction

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility of percutaneous transluminal ureteral biopsy (PTUB) combined with percutaneous nephroureteral stent placement for ureteral obstruction under fluoroscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From September 2011 to July 2021, 37 patients (27 men and 10 women; median age, 65.0 years) who experienced ureteroscopic biopsy failure or refused or were unable to undergo ureteroscopic biopsy underwent PTUB for ureteral obstruction during nephroureteral stent placement under fluoroscopic guidance. Data on technical success, early adverse events, and radiation dose were collected. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy (OA) of PTUB were analyzed.

RESULTS

The technical success of PTUB was 89.2%, with a mean irradiation dose of 76.9 mGy·cm2 ± 12.2. A total of 67.6% (25/37) of the cases were correctly diagnosed with malignancy, whereas 8 cases were confirmed to be true negatives. There were 4 false negatives and no false positives. PTUB had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and OA of 86.2% (25/29), 100% (8/8), 100% (25/25), 66.7% (8/12), and 89.2% (33/37), respectively. Eleven patients (29.7%) experienced Grade 1 adverse events (transient aggravated hematuria).

CONCLUSIONS

PTUB appears to be a safe and effective alternative to ureteroscopic biopsy for ureteral obstruction.

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

Background

The debate regarding the optimal drainage method for acute obstructive upper urinary tract infection persists, focusing on the choice between percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) and retrograde ureteral stenting (RUS).

Aims

This study aims to systematically examine the perioperative outcomes and safety associated with PCN and RUS in treating acute obstructive upper urinary tract infections.

Methods

A comprehensive investigation was conducted using the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to December 2022, following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The utilized keywords included 'PCN', 'RUS', 'acute upper obstructive uropathy', and 'RCT'. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies providing accurate and analyzable data, which incorporated the total subject count, perioperative outcomes, and complication rates. The assessed perioperative outcomes included fluoroscopy time, normalization of temperature, normalization of serum creatinine, normalization of white blood cell (WBC) count, and operative time. Safety outcomes encompassed failure rate, intraoperative and postoperative hematuria, postoperative fever, postoperative pain, and postoperative nephrostomy tube or stent slippage rate. The study protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022352474).

Results

The meta-analysis encompassed 7 trials involving 727 patients, with 412 assigned to the PCN group and 315 to the RUS group. The outcome of the meta-analysis unveiled a reduced occurrence of postoperative hematuria in the PCN group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.99, p = 0.04], along with a decreased frequency of insertion failure (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.81, p = 0.01). In addition, the RUS group exhibited a shorter fluoroscopy time than the PCN group (mean difference = 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.48, p = 0.0004).

Conclusion

Given the significant impact of hematuria and catheterization failure on postoperative quality of life, the preference for PCN appears more advantageous than RUS.

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.

Quality of life with tandem ureteral stents compared to percutaneous nephrostomy for malignant ureteral obstruction

PURPOSE

Malignant ureteral obstruction (MUO) is treated with kidney decompression by a percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) or internal ureteral stents. The objective of this study was to compare quality of life (QoL) with a PCN compared to tandem ureteral stents (TUS) in cases of MUO.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of patients with MUO who were treated by PCN/TUS in our institution between June 2019 and May 2020. Patients were asked to fill out a QoL questionnaire, a tube-symptoms questionnaire, report a general health scale, and asked for a drain preference if they had experience with both drains. Scores of both groups were compared and predictors of all QoL and tube-symptoms measures were searched using multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients with a PCN and 30 with TUS were included in the study. No statistically significant difference was found in all QoL and tube-symptoms measurements between the two drains. Type of drain was not found to be a predictor of QoL or tube-related symptoms. Eighty-four percent of patients (11/13) who have experience with both types of drains preferred TUS.

CONCLUSION

TUS and PCN for relief of MUO have a negative and similar effect on various areas of QoL and urinary symptoms. Most patients who had experience with both types of drains preferred TUS over PCN. In this patient population with a grim prognosis, this negative effect must be communicated to patients, and calculated against the potential benefits of drainage.

Predictors of nadir serum creatinine after drainage of bilaterally obstructed kidneys due to different etiologies

PURPOSE

To identify the predictors of nadir serum creatinine (SCr) after drainage of bilaterally obstructed kidneys (BOKs) by different modes: double-J stent (JJ) versus percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) and unilateral versus bilateral drainage.

METHODS

A prospective non-randomized study was performed on patients with BOKs and raised SCr during December 2019-November 2021. Relevant variables were studied for improvement and non-improvement and for benign and malignant underlying obstructions (BUO and MUO).

RESULTS

This study included 107 patients with BOKs including 68 (63.6%) males and 39 (36.4%) females. After drainage, 86 (80.4%) patients get improved, while 21 (19.6%) patients failed to reach a nadir SCr. Drainage by PCN was significantly higher in MUO, while JJ was significantly higher in BUO (p < 0.001). Also, bilateral drainage was a significant predictor of improvement in MUO (p = 0.03). In contrast, mode of drainage had no significant effect on improvement in BUO (p = 0.84), but bilateral drainage was a significant factor of rapid time to nadir (p = 0.02). Univariate analyses revealed no significant effects on the improvement in SCr from the studied variables, except the male gender (p = 0.01), old age (p < 0.001), MUO (p = 0.01), unilateral drainage (p < 0.001), and use of PCN for drainage (p < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, unilateral drainage (p = 0.01) and MUO (p < 0.001) were independent predictors of non-improvement in patients with BOKs.

CONCLUSIONS

Male gender, old age, MUO, unilateral drainage, and drainage by PCN were significant predictors of non-improvement in SCr after drainage of BOKs. However, unilateral drainage and MUO were the only independent predictors of non-improvement.

Emergent urinary decompression in acute stone-related urinary obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction:

Emergent urinary decompression through percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) or ureteric stent (URS) remains a mainstay in the management of urethral calculi-related obstruction with associated signs of infection or renal injury. Available evidence has shown similar performance, and current guidelines endorse both treatment strategies.

Methods:

A systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis criteria up until August 2020. Studies included data on stone size and location, operative time, complications, length of stay, analgesic consumption, quality of life (QoL), and clinical outcomes between URS and PCN.

Results:

Ten studies with a total population of 772, of which 420 were treated with URS and 352 with PCN, were included. No statistical difference in operative time between both techniques was found. Nevertheless, length of stay in PCN was longer than in USR, with a mean difference of −1.87 days ((95% CI −2.69 to −1.06), Z=4.50, p=0.00001). No differences were found in the time to normalization of temperature or white blood cell counts. There were no significant differences in success rates, with an overall odds ratio (OR) of 0.60 ((95% CI 0.26 to −1.40), Z=1.17, p=0.24), or spontaneous passage after emergent drainage between groups. Complication rates ranged from 5% to 25% in URS and from 0% to 38% in PCN. In the studied population, out of the 157 patients from four studies describing complications, only 5% of URS procedures presented complications compared to 2% in PCN, showing a relatively low complication rate for either group (OR=2.07 (95% CI 0.89–4.84), Z=1.68, p=0.09). Differences in QoL were not significant.

Conclusion:

Both methods are equally effective, with no clear advantage for PCN over URS.

Level of evidence:

IV

European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis and International Alliance of Urolithiasis Joint Consensus on Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

CONTEXT

Although percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been performed for decades and has gone through many refinements, there are still concerns regarding its more widespread utilization because of the long learning curve and the potential risk of severe complications. Many technical details are not included in the guidelines because of their nature and research protocol.

OBJECTIVE

To achieve an expert consensus viewpoint on PCNL indications, preoperative patient preparation, surgical strategy, management and prevention of severe complications, postoperative management, and follow-up.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

An international panel of experts from the Urolithiasis Section of the European Association of Urology, International Alliance of Urolithiasis, and other urology associations was enrolled, and a prospectively conducted study, incorporating literature review, discussion on research gaps (RGs), and questionnaires and following data analysis, was performed to reach a consensus on PCNL.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The expert panel consisted of 36 specialists in PCNL from 20 countries all around the world. A consensus on PCNL was developed. The expert panel was not as large as expected, and the discussion on RGs did not bring in more supportive evidence in the present consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate preoperative preparation, especially elimination of urinary tract infection prior to PCNL, accurate puncture with guidance of fluoroscopy and/or ultrasonography or a combination, keeping a low intrarenal pressure, and shortening of operation time during PCNL are important technical requirements to ensure safety and efficiency in PCNL.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been a well-established procedure for the management of upper urinary tract stones. However, according to an expert panel consensus, core technical aspects, as well as the urologist's experience, are critical to the safety and effectiveness of PCNL.