Search

Introduction: Recent retrospective literature suggests that the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) scoring tool is a potentially superior tool over use of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to predict septic shock after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) surgery. Here we examine use of qSOFA and SIRS to predict septic shock within data series collected prospectively on PCNL patients as part of a greater study of infectious complications. Materials and Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of two prospective multicenter studies including PCNL patients across nine institutions. Clinical signs informing SIRS and qSOFA scores were collected no later than postoperative day 1. The primary outcome was sensitivity and specificity of SIRS and qSOFA (high-risk score of greater-or-equal to two points) in predicting admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) for vasopressor support. Results: A total of 218 cases at 9 institutions were analyzed. One patient required vasopressor support in the ICU. The sensitivity/specificity was 100%/72.4% (McNemar's test p < 0.001) for SIRS and was 100%/90.8% (McNemar's test p < 0.001) for qSOFA. Conclusion: Although positive predictive value for both qSOFA and SIRS in prediction of post-PCNL septic shock is low, prospectively collected data demonstrate use of qSOFA may offer greater specificity than SIRS criteria when predicting post-PCNL septic shock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The acute care surgery model has led to improved outcomes for emergent surgical conditions, but similar models of care have not been implemented in urology. Our department implemented an acute care urology (ACU) service in 2015, and the service evolved in 2018. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the ACU model on the management of nephrolithiasis. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients with urology consults in the emergency department for nephrolithiasis, who required surgical intervention from 2013 to 2019. Patients were divided into three cohorts based on date of consultation: Pre-ACU (2013–2014), Phase 1 (2015–2017), and Phase 2 (2018–2019). Results: We identified 733 patients with nephrolithiasis requiring intervention (162 pre-ACU, 334 Phase 1, and 237 Phase 2). Before ACU implementation, median time from consult to definitive intervention was 36 days. After ACU implementation, median time to intervention decreased to 22 days in Phase 1 (p < 0.001) and 15 days in Phase 2 (p < 0.001). On multivariable Cox regression, the hazard of definitive intervention improved in Phase 1 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.90, p < 0.001) and in Phase 2 (HR 1.80, p < 0.001). Rates of primary definitive intervention without initial decompression and loss to follow-up were also significantly improved, compared to the pre-ACU cohort. Conclusions: Implementation of a structured ACU service was associated with improved time to treatment for patients with acute nephrolithiasis, as well as increased primary definitive intervention and improved follow-up care. This model of care has potential to improve patient outcomes for nephrolithiasis and other acute urological conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy is becoming the most commonly utilized treatment for patients with urinary calculi. The Holmium:YAG (yttrium aluminum garnet) laser is integral to the operation and is the preferred flexible intracorporeal lithotrite. In recent years, there has been increasing interest in examining the effect of varying the laser settings on the effectiveness of stone treatment. Herein, we review the two primary laser treatment approaches: dusting and fragmentation with extraction. Methods: We reviewed PubMed and MEDLINE databases from January 1976 through January 2017. All authors participated in the development of consensus definitions of dusting and fragmentation with extraction. The review protocol adhered to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) methodology. Results: When the Holmium:YAG laser is used to treat stones, there are two parameters that can be adjusted: power (J) and frequency (Hz). In one treatment paradigm, which became termed 'fragmentation with extraction,' laser settings that relied on high energy and low frequency were used. Another paradigm, which became termed 'dusting,' utilized low energy and high frequency settings, which had the effect of breaking off exceedingly small fragments from the stone. Conclusions: Both dusting and fragmentation with extraction approaches to ureteroscopic stone treatment are effective. In fact, there is little evidence that one approach is better than the other. However, each does have relative advantages and disadvantages, which should be considered. Although dusting tends to be associated with shorter procedure times and a lower risk of ureteral damage, this approach may place the patient at increased risk for future stone events should all of the resultant debris not be expelled from the collecting system. The active removal associated with fragmentation with extraction, in contrast, may provide for a more complete initial stone clearance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Less is known about patient outcomes, since there have been conflicting results on stone-free rates in comparing use of access sheath vs. no access sheath.[2],[3] We were somewhat surprised that this large data set showed that ureteral access sheath use demonstrated lower odds of being stone free. We would like to applaud the investigators on their effort to better understand how use of ureteral access sheaths during primary ureteroscopy effects patient outcomes.[1] As selective access sheath users ourselves, we were interested to see the results of a study such as this, however, the lack of granularity of some data leads to a shortcoming in the article. [Extracted from the article]