A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone. | LitMetric

Objective: To compare emergency with elective ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of a single ureteric stone.

Patients And Methods: The files of adult patients with a single ureteric stone were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with fever or turbid urine on passage of the guidewire beside the stone underwent ureteric stenting or nephrostomy drainage. Patients who underwent URS were included and divided into two groups: the emergency (EM) Group, those who presented with persistent renal colic and underwent emergency URS within 24 h; and the elective (EL) Group, who underwent elective URS after ≥14 days of diagnosis. Patients with ureteric stents were excluded. The technique for URS was the same in both groups. Safety was defined as absence of complications. Efficacy was defined as the stone-free rate after a single URS session.

Results: From March 2015 to September 2018, 179 patients (107 in the EM Group and 72 in the EL Group) were included. There were significantly more hydronephrosis and smaller stones in the EM Group ( = 0.002 and = 0.001, respectively). Laser disintegration was needed in more patients in the EL Group (83% vs 68%, = 0.023). Post-URS ureteric stents were inserted in more patients in the EM Group (91% vs 72%, = 0.001). Complications were comparable for both groups (4.2% for EL and 5.6% for EM, = 0.665). Stone-free rates were also comparable (93% in the EL Group and 96% in the EM Group, = 0.336).

Conclusions: Emergency URS can be as safe and effective as elective URS for the treatment of a single ureteric stone if it is performed in patients without fever or turbid urine.: EL Group: elective group; EM Group: emergency group; KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; MET: medical expulsive therapy; NCCT: non-contrast CT; SFR: stone-free rate; SWL: shockwave lithotripsy; URS: ureteroscopy.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8158266PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2020.1813004DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

single ureteric
16
group
13
ureteric stone
12
urs
9
emergency elective
8
elective ureteroscopy
8
urs treatment
8
treatment single
8
patients
8
patients fever
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!