Perinephric fat stranding is associated with increased age and stone size but not with serum creatinine in patients with obstructing ureterolithiasis.

Previous reports show increased severity of perinephric fat stranding (PFS) with elevated serum creatinine in obstructing ureterolithiasis. We sought to investigate this association with our institution's patient population.We reviewed charts of patients diagnosed with obstructive ureterolithiasis or nephrolithiasis in our emergency department between January and October 2018. Patient demographics, lab results, and computed tomography (CT) imaging were reviewed. A blinded radiologist reviewed all CTs and graded hydronephrosis and PFS. Subjects were stratified by degree of PFS and compared via paired t-test, chi-squared test, univariate analysis, and multivariate analysis.We identified 141 patients; 114 had no-mild (Group 1) PFS, while 27 had moderate-severe (Group 2) PFS. Group 1 had a mean age of 56 (SD = 16.1) and mean stone size of 7.3 mm (SD = 4.22); 77% of the cohort had symptoms under 24 h. Group 2 was older with a mean age of 65 (SD = 16.2, p = 0.01) and mean stone size of 10.1 mm (SD = 6.07, p < 0.01); 50% had symptoms less than 24 h (p = 0.01). PFS did not correlate with change in serum creatinine. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed increasing age increased the odds of moderate-severe PFS by 3.5% (OR = 1.035, p < 0.05) while increased stone size increased the odds of moderate-severe PFS by 13.7% (OR = 1.137, p = 0.01).Although increased PFS correlated with increased age and stone size, no correlation was found with presenting creatinine or change in creatinine. Degree of PFS is likely a poor predictor of renal disease severity in acute ureterolithiasis.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Values of Leukocytes, Neutrophils, Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Distinguishing between Acute Appendicitis and Right Ureterolithiasis.

BACKGROUND: To compare the diagnostic values of leukocytes, neutrophils, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in distinguishing between acute appendicitis (AA) and right ureterolithiasis (RU). METHODS: In this retrospective study, 106 patients diagnosed with AA (Appendicitis group) and 33 cases with RU (Ureterolithiasis group) were enrolled due to acute right lower abdominal pain. The levels of peripheral blood leukocyte counts (leukocytes), neutrophil counts (neutrophils), lymphocyte counts (lymphocytes), platelet counts (platelets), NLR and PLR were recorded and compared between the two groups. Student's t-test for independent samples was adopted for comparing the mean between the two groups. Model discrimination was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Comparison of AUC was performed using the Z-test. RESULTS: The levels of leukocytes, neutrophils, NLR, and PLR were significantly increased in AA compared with RU (all p < 0.01), while there were no significant statistical differences of lymphocytes and platelets (all p > 0.05); moreover, AUC in distinguishing AA from RU was 0.797 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.721 to 0.861) for leukocytes, 0.814 (95% CI, 0.740 to 0.875) for neutrophils, 0.770 (95% CI, 0.691 to 0.837) for NLR, and 0.608 (95% CI, 0.522 to 0.690) for PLR, and significant differences were observed between PLR and any of the three other parameters (all p < 0.01), while there were no significant statistical differences after pairwise comparison between leukocytes, neutrophils and NLR (all p > 0.05). Finally, the cutoff values were 13.1 × 109/L in distinguishing between AA and RU (specificity 87.88%, sensitivity 63.21%, and Youden index 0.511) for leukocytes, 7.4 x 109/L (specificity 69.70%, sensitivity 83.02%, and Youden index 0.527) for neutrophils, 5.57 (specificity 81.82%, sensitivity 68.87%, and Youden index 0.507) for NLR, and 182.5 (specificity 84.85%, sensitivity 37.74%, and Youden index 0.226) for PLR. CONCLUSIONS: Leukocytes, neutrophils, and NLR can demonstrate more accurate and reliable diagnostic values than PLR, suggesting that they are useful and potential biomarkers in distinguishing between AA and RU.

[Biomarkers of renal injury in contact ureteral lithotripsy].

AIM: To optimize the transurethral endoscopic management of patients with ureterolithiasis by measuring biomarkers of renal parenchymal damage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-one patients with solitary ureteral stones were tested for levels of cystatin C, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, 2-microglobulin and interleukin 18. RESULTS: An increase in the levels of markers of renal injury was observed both in the preoperative period and after CULT. Differences in the values of these indices depended on the timing of the CULT, the size and location of the stone and the type of lithotripter. CONCLUSIONS: All patients were found to have damage to the renal tubular system. The established critical values of the markers of renal injury in ureterolithiasis may be used as diagnostic criteria for renal injury.

Influence of acetylsalicylic acid and low-molecular weight heparins on the formation of renal hematoma after shock wave lithotripsy.

PURPOSE: To investigate the risk of renal hematoma (RHT) after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) among patients on acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 434 patients treated with SWL for nephrolithiasis and ureterolithiasis of the proximal ureter. Primary endpoint was detection of RHT by ultrasound the day after SWL. Secondary outcome variables included transfusion of erythrocyte concentrate(s), interventions, hospital readmission or death due to RHT within 30 days of SWL. Binary logistic regression analysis was used including a post hoc one-way analysis. RESULTS: Of 434 patients, 33 (7.6%) and 67 (15.4%) patients were medicated with ASA and LMWH, respectively. RHT was detected in 20 of 434 (4.6%) patients. Of those, 3 (20%) were on ASA, 6 (35%) were on LMWH, 1 (5%) was on ASA and LMWH, and 10 (50%) had no anticoagulation. Univariate analysis showed a statistically significant higher risk for RHT among patients on ASA (p = 0.04) and LWMH (p = 0.02) with an untreated urinary tract infection (UTI) (p = 0.008) and history of cardiovascular disease (p = 0.028). On multivariate analysis, ASA medication, untreated UTI (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.31-14.75, p = 0.016 and OR 5.79, 95% CI 1.65-20.32, p = 0.03) and a therapeutic dose of LMWH (OR 10.4, 95% CI 1.74-62.27, p = 0.01) were independent predictors for RHT. CONCLUSIONS: Before SWL, a patient risk profile should be evaluated. If feasible, LMWH in therapeutic dosing should be avoided, and ASA should be discontinued. UTI should be treated before SWL in any case. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Identifier NCT02875717.