Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with spinal cord injury: should all these patients be automatically assigned a Guy's stone score of 4?
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
5
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2021
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
SPRINGER
Autores
ZANETTI, Lucas
CLARO, Joaquim F. A.
Citação
WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, v.39, n.6, Special Issue, p.2129-2134, 2021
Resumo
Purpose To assess the complication and stone-free rates of PCNL in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) and to evaluate whether this population should be assigned a Guy's stone score (GSS) of 4. Methods A case-control study was conducted, and electronic charts were reviewed to search for patients with SCI, bladder dysfunction, and kidney stones who had undergone PCNL. Control cases were randomly selected from among patients with complete staghorn calculus (GSS = 4). Results One hundred and seventeen patients were included. Patients with SCI had a significant shorter operative time (119 vs. 141 min;p = 0.018). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the patients' position, number of renal tracts, bleeding or transfusion rate; however, there was a significantly higher complication rate (23.1% vs. 7.8%;p = 0.009) and a longer hospital stay (5.8 vs. 3.1 days;p = 0.002) among patients with SCI. With regards to the stone-free rate in patients with different grades of GSS patients with SCI who had a GSS of 1 had a stone-free rate of 85.7%, while those with a GSS of 2, 3, or 4 had 50%, 50%, and 31.5%, respectively (p = 0.024). Only patients with a GSS of 4 in the SCI group had outcomes that were similar to those of control patients (31.5% vs. 31.6%). Conclusion Patients with SCI should not be automatically assigned GSS 4. Stone-free rate is related to stone burden in these patients, although they do show a higher complication rate and a longer hospital stay than non-neurological patients.
Palavras-chave
Complications, Kidney, Lithotripsy, Urinary calculi
Referências
- Alsinnawi M, 2013, IRISH J MED SCI, V182, P357, DOI 10.1007/s11845-012-0888-4
- Chaudhry R, 2017, J ENDOUROL, V31, pS81, DOI 10.1089/end.2016.0769
- de la Rosette J, 2011, J ENDOUROL, V25, P11, DOI 10.1089/end.2010.0424
- Melo PAD, 2018, BJU INT, V121, P640, DOI 10.1111/bju.14129
- Kumar S, 2013, J UROLOGY, V189, P1757, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.115
- Labate G, 2011, J ENDOUROL, V25, P1275, DOI 10.1089/end.2011.0067
- Nabbout P, 2012, J ENDOUROL, V26, P1610, DOI 10.1089/end.2012.0344
- Pradere B, 2018, J UROLOGY, V199, P1267, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.111
- Raj GV, 1999, J UROLOGY, V162, P1238, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)68146-1
- Rubenstein JN, 2004, UROLOGY, V63, P636, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2003.11.027
- Scales CD, 2012, EUR UROL, V62, P160, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.052
- Stamatelou KK, 2003, KIDNEY INT, V63, P1817, DOI 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00917.x
- Symons S, 2006, INT J UROL, V13, P874, DOI 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01431.x
- Thomas K, 2011, UROLOGY, V78, P277, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2010.12.026
- Torricelli FCM, 2020, INT BRAZ J UROL, V46, P927, DOI [10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2020.99.07, 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2020.99.07]
- Turk C, 2016, EUR UROL, V69, P475, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041
- Vicentini FC, 2017, INT BRAZ J UROL, V43, P1102, DOI [10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0586, 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0586]
- Vicentini FC, 2014, UROLOGY, V83, P1248, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2013.12.041
- Wang HHS, 2015, J UROLOGY, V193, P1270, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.095