4.1 Article

Lithotrites and Postoperative Fever: Does Lithotrite Type Matter? Results from the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study

期刊

UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS
卷 91, 期 3, 页码 340-344

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000351752

关键词

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy; Lithotrites; Fever

资金

  1. Olympus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare the risks of fever from different lithotrites after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). Materials and Methods: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) PNL database is a prospective, multi-institutional, international PNL registry. Of 5,803 total patients, 4,968 received preoperative antibiotics, were supplied with complete information and included in this analysis. The lithotrites assessed included no fragmentation, ultrasonic, laser, pneumatic and combination ultrasonic/pneumatic. Risk of fever was estimated using multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for diabetes, steroid use, a history of positive urine culture, the presence of stag horn calculi or preoperative nephrostomy, stone burden and lithotrite. Results: The overall fever rate was 10%. Pneumatic lithotrites were used in 43% of the cohort, followed by ultrasonic (24%), combination ultrasonic/pneumatic (17.3%), no fragmentation (8.4%) and laser (7.3%). Fever rates were no different between patients who underwent no or any fragmentation (p = 0.117), nor among patients when stratified by lithotrite (p = 0.429). On multivariate analysis, fragmentation was not significantly associated with fever [Odds Ratio (OR) 1.17, p = 0.413], while diabetes (OR 1.32, p = 0.048), positive urine culture (OR 2.08, p < 0.001), staghorn calculi (OR 1.80, p < 0.001) and nephrostonny (OR 1.65, p < 0.001) increased fever risk. Fever risk among lithotrites did not differ (p >= 0.128). Conclusions: Risk of post-PNL fever was not significantly different among the various lithotrites used in the CROES PNL study. Copyright (C) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据