Patient and stone characteristics associated with surgical intervention in pediatrics

Variation in care between pediatric and adult patients presenting with nephrolithiasis to tertiary care pediatric emergency departments in the United States (2009-2020)

BACKGROUND

Individuals with nephrolithiasis frequently present to the Emergency Department (ED). Safety and quality principles are often applied in pediatric EDs to children presenting with nephrolithiasis, such as limiting ionizing radiation exposure and opioid analgesics. However, it is unknown whether pediatric EDs apply these same principles to adult patients who present with nephrolithiasis. We hypothesized that adult patients would be associated with higher use of radiation-based imaging and opioid analgesics.

OBJECTIVE

To assess variations in diagnostic and treatment interventions and hospital utilization between pediatric and adult patients presenting to the pediatric ED with nephrolithiasis.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was conducted, examining outcomes for pediatric (<18-years-old) versus adult (≥18-years-old) patients in 42 pediatric EDs from 2009 to 2020 using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database. Patients with an ICD-9/10 principal diagnosis code of nephrolithiasis with no nephrolithiasis-related visits within the prior 6 months were included. Primary outcomes were imaging, medications, and surgical interventions. Secondary outcomes were hospital admissions, 90-day ED revisits, and 90-day readmissions. Generalized linear mixed models with random effects were used to adjust for confounding and clustering.

RESULTS

In total, 16,117 patients with 17,837 encounters were included. Most hospitals were academic (95.2%), and a plurality were located in the South (38.1%). Most patients were <18-years-old (84.4%, median (interquartile range): 15 (12-17)-years-old), female (57.9%), and White (76.3%), and 17.1% were Hispanic/Latino. Most had no complex chronic conditions (89.2%) and no chronic disease per pediatric medical complexity algorithm (51.5%). For the primary outcome, adults, relative to pediatric patients, who presented to the pediatric ED with nephrolithiasis had higher adjusted odds of receiving computerized tomography (CT) scans (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.43 [95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.29-1.59]) and opioid analgesics (OR 1.45 [95%CI 1.33-1.58]) (Summary Figure). Secondary outcomes showed that adults, relative to pediatric patients, had lower adjusted odds of hospital admissions, 90-day ED revisits, and 90-day readmissions.

DISCUSSION

Our results suggest that certain pediatric safety and quality principles, such as limiting ionizing radiation exposure and opioid analgesic prescriptions, are not being equally applied to pediatric and adult patients who present to pediatric EDs with nephrolithiasis. The mechanism of these findings remains to be elucidated.

CONCLUSIONS

Variations in care for individuals with nephrolithiasis reflect an opportunity for quality improvement in pediatric EDs and inform work exploring optimal care pathways for all patients presenting to the pediatric ED with nephrolithiasis.

Prevalence of urolithiasis among the Uyghur children of China: a population-based cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the prevalence and associated factors of urolithiasis amongst Uyghur children.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted of Uyghur children (aged ≤14 years) in the Kashgar Region of China, from July to December 2016. Children were selected by a two-stage random clustered sampling method, evaluated by urinary tract ultrasonography, low-dose computed tomography (CT) examination, blood and urine analysis, and a questionnaire. The prevalence by CT, the prevalence by self-report in the questionnaires, and the lifetime prevalence were evaluated. Binary logistic regression was used to estimate the associated factors.

RESULTS

A total of 5605 children were selected and invited to participate in the study. In all, 4813 Uyghur children (2471 boys and 2342 girls), with an mean (SD; range) age of 75.79 (43.81; 2-177) months, were included in the final analysis, with a response rate of 85.9%. The prevalence of paediatric urolithiasis was 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-2.2) by CT, 2.3% (95% CI 1.9-2.7) by self-report, and 3.6% (95% CI 3.0-4.1) for the overall life-time. The age-sex adjusted prevalence was 2.0% (95% CI 1.6-2.4) by CT. Binary logistic regression analysis showed that body mass index, urinary tract infection, a family history of urolithiasis, and excessive sweating could increase the risk of stone formation, whilst breast feeding and drinking water at midnight could decrease the risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Urolithiasis is a major public health problem amongst Uyghur children, and strategies aimed at the prevention of urolithiasis are needed.

Surgical treatment methods of urolithiasis in the pediatric population

Urolithiasis in the pediatric population represents a major challenge associated with both the diagnosis and therapy of the condition. Over the past 25 years, the incidence has increased. The average age of pediatric patients with stones is about 7-8 years and the recurrence rate is 24%-50%. More than 80% of the stones are eliminated spontaneously. The remaining ones require conservative or surgical treatment. Choosing the most appropriate treatment depends on many factors. Surgical procedures in children are the same as in adults. These include extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureterolithotripsy (URSL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and laparoscopic or open surgery. ESWL is a method of choice for the treatment of stones with a diameter of ≤20 mm located in the upper urinary tract, while PCNL is used in the treatment of deposits ≥1.5 cm located in the upper pole of the kidney, deposits of ≥1.0 cm located in the lower pole of the kidney, as well as hard stones such as cystic or struvite ones. URSL/RIRS is a method for ureteral and renal stones. Open surgery is indicated in cases when anatomical anomalies coexist with urolithiasis, or when the use of PCNL or ESWL is impossible. The ideal procedure should be effective, safe and allow the complete evacuation of the stones after the 1st procedure.

The efficacy and safety of adrenergic alpha-antagonists in treatment of distal ureteral stones in pediatric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adrenergic alpha-antagonists as a medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones in pediatric patients.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases were searched up to January 2016. All randomized controlled trials and all cohort studies in which patients were randomized to receive either adrenergic alpha-antagonists or placebo for ureteral stones were identified. The outcome measures assessed were overall stone expulsion rate (primary), expulsion time (secondary), and treatment-emergent adverse events.

RESULTS

Five trials with a total of 406 pediatric patients met the inclusion criteria. According to the doses of adrenergic alpha-antagonists, the pooling effects of adrenergic alpha-antagonists were analyzed, with a higher expulsion rate obtained than in controls, the stone expulsion rate (OR=2.70, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.91, P=0.001). Adrenergic alpha-antagonists statistically did not significantly decrease the number of the stone expulsion time with the placebo, the stone expulsion time (SMD=-4.65, 95% CI -9.76 to 0.45, P=0.07). Safety assessments included common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (OR=2.01, 95% CI 0.74 to 5.48, P=0.17). Compared with placebos, there was a higher stone expulsion rate with the adrenergic alpha-antagonists; in addition, fewer adverse effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis may suggest that adrenergic alpha-antagonists are a safe and effective medical expulsive therapy choice for ureteral stones in pediatric patients. As the level of classification of evidence-based medicine, the level of evidence of our article is Ia. But it remains to need a large-scale multicenter randomized controlled study to be further confirmed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

The level of evidence of our study is V.