Assessment of the incidence and risk factors of postoperative urosepsis in patients undergoing ureteroscopic lithotripsy

Introduction

Ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) is an approved, minimally invasive, low-risk procedure for urolithiasis treatment. However, some patients may develop urinary tract infection (UTI) post-procedure, eventually leading to urosepsis. Determining the predictors of infection after URSL would help identify patients at a high risk of urosepsis, thereby enabling the early implementation of effective treatment. Therefore, we aimed to establish the incidence and predictors of urosepsis after URSL.

Material and methods

We assessed 231 patients who underwent URSL using a holmium laser. The incidence of urosepsis during the 30-day post-treatment period was analysed, and potential predictors of urosepsis, including patient characteristics and individual clinical factors, were examined.

Results

Statistical analysis revealed that 16.88% of patients had a confirmed positive urine culture before the procedure. Post-procedure urosepsis occurred in 4.76% of patients. Univariable analysis revealed that 3 factors were significantly associated with the risk of postoperative urosepsis: double-J stent insertion before URSL, pre-operative positive urine culture, and MDR pathogen found preoperatively. In multivariable analysis, only positive urine culture remained significantly associated with the risk of urosepsis after URSL.

Conclusions

Patients with positive urine culture before URSL are at significantly higher risk of urosepsis in the postoperative period. Hence, urine culture should be routinely performed before planned endoscopic urolithiasis treatment.

Did the COVID-19 Pandemic Restrict Access to Emergency Urological Services: Assessment of Reorganisation Effectiveness for Hospital Treatment

Urolithiasis derived renal colic is a common urological condition. If treated properly, the disease resolves without complications; if not treated, it causes infection and renal failure. The COVID-19 restrictions impacted hospitalised treatment of diseases. We analysed the impact of COVID-19 on renal colic treatment at a hospital in Poland. Clinical and demographic data of patients treated during the COVID-19 era were compared with those treated before this pandemic. During the COVID-19 restrictions, renal colic patient hospital admissions fell significantly. However, more patients presented with chronic renal colic symptoms and urinary tract infections. Nevertheless, the degree of hydronephrosis and the number and location of stones did not differ between the two groups. No marked changes were observed in the chosen treatment options. The observed decrease in emergency admissions of patients with acute renal colic with a simultaneous increase in the rate of infectious stones might indicate that some patients requiring urgent medical help did not report to the emergency department or came later than they would before the pandemic, reporting more serious symptoms. One plausible explanation for this may be that the reorganisation of the healthcare system restricted access to urological care. Moreover, some patients may have delayed their visit to the hospital due to the fear of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.