Deferred drainage-related complications in patients with palliative nephrostomy
https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2022-18-2-164-170
Abstract
Aim. To assess the frequency and timing of drainage associated complications in patients after palliative nephrostomy with nephrostomy tubes of various diameter and design. To establish a relationship between the presence of diabetes mellitus and the risk of acute pyelonephritis.
Materials and methods. The records of 73 patients who received care between January 2018 and May 2021 were retrospectively reviewed for complications, related to nephrostomy tube. 201 cases of patient attendance due to nephrostomy tube dis-lodgement, nephrostomy tube obstruction and pyelonephritis were analyzed. The frequency and timing of the onset of complications in groups of patients with J-type (<12 Fr) and balloon-type (≥12 Fr) drains were separately assessed.
Results. In total, there were 100 visits of patients with J-type catheters and 101 visits with balloon nephrostomy catheters. The reasons for attendance among patients with J-type nephrostomy tube were: impaired drainage function (46 %), pyelonephritis (35 %) and dislocation of the catheter (19 %); and for patients with balloon catheters: pyelonephritis (39 %), impaired drainage function (34 %), dislocation (27 %). Patients with diabetes mellitus were significantly more likely (p <0.05) to develop pyelonephritis than those who did not have diabetes.
Conclusion. The most common reasons for the urgent hospital attendance of patients with nephrostomy drainage are pyelonephritis and inadequate function. Diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for the development of pyelonephritis in this group of patients.
About the Authors
I. E. Mamaev
Moscow City Clinical Hospital named after V.M. Buyanov, Moscow Healthcare Department; N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Ibragim Enverovich Mamaev
26 Bakinskaya St., Moscow 115516; 1 Ostrovityanova St., Moscow 117997
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
I. A. Zhestkov
N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
1 Ostrovityanova St., Moscow 117997
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
K. I. Glinin
Moscow City Clinical Hospital named after V.M. Buyanov, Moscow Healthcare Department
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
26 Bakinskaya St., Moscow 115516
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
S. V. Kotov
N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
1 Ostrovityanova St., Moscow 117997
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
References
1. Urology: National Guide. Ed.: N.A. Lopatkin. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2013. 608 p. (In Russ.).
2. Hausegger K.A., Portugaller H.R. Percutaneous nephrostomy and antegrade ureteral stenting: technique-indicationscomplications. Eur Radiol 2006;16(9):2016–30. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-005-0136-7
3. Docimo S.G., Dewolf W.C. High failure rate of indwelling ureteral stents in patients with extrinsic obstruction: experience at 2 in- stitutions. J Urol 1989;142(2 Pt 1):277–9. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)38729-3
4. Feng M.I., Bellman G.C., Shapiro C.E. Management of ureteral obstruction secondary to pelvic malignancies. J Endourol 1999;13(7):521–4. DOI: 10.1089/end.1999.13.521
5. Alma E., Ercil H., Vuruskan E. et al. Long-term follow-up results and complications in cancer patients with persistent nephrostomy due to malignant ureteral obstruction. Support Care Cancer 2020;28(11):5581–8. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-020-05662-z
6. McDevitt J.L., Acosta-Torres S., Zhang N. et al. Long-term percutaneous nephrostomy management of malignant urinary obstruction: estimation of optimal exchange frequency and estimation of the financial impact of patient compliance. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2017;28(7):1036–42.e8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.02.031
7. Plesinac-Karapandzic V., Masulovic D., Markovic B. et al. Percutaneous nephrostomy in the management of advanced and terminal-stage gynecologic malignancies: outcome and complications. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2010;31(6):645–50.
8. Ching K.C., Shlansky-Goldberg R.D., Trerotola S.O. A durable percutaneous U-tube nephrostomy for management of a recurrently displaced locking loop catheter. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2017;28(3):475–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2016.10.025
9. Wah T.M., Weston M.J., Irving H.C. Percutaneous nephrostomy insertion: outcome data from a prospective multioperator study at a UK training centre. Clin Radiol 2004;59(3):255–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2003.10.021
10. Misra S., Coker C., Richenberg J. Percutaneous nephrostomy for ureteric obstruction due to advanced pelvic malignancy: have we got the balance right? Int Urol Nephrol 2013;45(3):627–32. DOI: 10.1007/s11255-013-0458-3
11. Bayne D., Taylor E.R., Hampson L. et al. Determinants of nephrostomy tube dislodgment after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2015;29(3):289–92. DOI: 10.1089/end.2014.0387
12. Mishra S., Sharma R., Garg C. et al. Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int 2011;108(6):896–9; discussion 899–900. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09936.x
13. Szvalb A.D., El Haddad H., Rolston K.V. et al. Risk factors for recurrent percutaneous nephrostomy catheter related infections. Infection 2019;47(2):239–45. DOI: 10.1007/s15010-018-1245-y
14. Cronan J.J., Horn D.L., Marcello A. et al. Antibiotics and nephrostomy tube care: preliminary observations. Part II. Bacteremia. Radiology 1989;172(3 Pt 2): 1043–5. DOI: 10.1148/172.3.1043
15. Ryan J.M., Ryan B.M., Smith T.P. Antibiotic prophylaxis in interventional radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2004;15(6):547–56. DOI: 10.1097/01.rvi.000024942.58200.5e
16. Cronan J.J., Marcello A., Horn D.L. et al. Antibiotics and nephrostomy tube care: preliminary observations. Part I. Bacteriuria. Radiology 1989;172(3 Pt 2):1041–2. DOI: 10.1148/172.3.1041
17. Bahu R., Chaftari A.M., Hachem R.Y. et al. Nephrostomy tube related pyelonephritis in patients with cancer: epidemiology, infection rate and risk factors. J Urol 2013;189(1):130–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.094
18. Farrell T.A., Hicks M.E. A review of radiologically guided percutaneous nephrostomies in 303 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1997;8(5):769–74. DOI: 10.1016/s1051-0443(97)70658-4
19. Maki D.G., Tambyah P.A. Engineering out the risk for infection with urinary catheters. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7(2):342–7. DOI: 10.3201/eid0702.010240
20. Platt R., Polk B.F., Murdock B., Rosner B. Risk factors for nosocomial urinary tract infection. Am J Epidemiol 1986;124(6):977–85. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114487
Review
For citations:
Mamaev I.E., Zhestkov I.A., Glinin K.I., Kotov S.V. Deferred drainage-related complications in patients with palliative nephrostomy. Cancer Urology. 2022;18(2):164-170. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2022-18-2-164-170
Views:
488
Email this article 