3.8 Article

Clinical presentation of urolithiasis in older and younger population

Journal

ARCHIVIO ITALIANO DI UROLOGIA E ANDROLOGIA
Volume 86, Issue 4, Pages 249-252

Publisher

PAGEPRESS PUBL
DOI: 10.4081/aiua.2014.4.249

Keywords

Urinary calculi; Elderly; Comorbidities

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim of the study: We compared stone size, localization, complaint at the time of applying, comorbidity, treatment and complications between older (60 years of age and older) and younger patients with urolithiasis (59 years of age and younger). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 950 consecutive patients who presented to our clinic and underwent surgery for urolithiasis from January 2007 to March 2012. The patients were divided into two groups: patients >= 60 years an patients < 60 years. Results: There were 174 men and 61 women in elderly group, 528 men and 187 women in younger group. Ureteral stones were found more often in the younger group compared to elderly patients (p < 0.05). Conversely, bladder stone was more frequent in the elderly group. In the elderly group comorbidities are more frequent (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, congestive heart disease, osteoarthritis and chronic obstructive lung). Patients >= 60 years significantly had larger kidney and bladder stones compared the younger, but ureteral stone sizes were not statistically different between the two groups. Older patients had a higher postoperative complication rate than younger patients (16% versus 3%, p < 0.05) although postoperative complications (e.g. urinary retention, cardiac dysrythmia, fever, constipation) were not serious and resolved with medical treatment. The average length of stay in hospital was longer in the elderly group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions: Elderly patients with urolithiasis usually have larger and more complex stone disease, more comorbidities and atypical presentation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available