Antibiotic prophylaxis in children with ureteric stents: Bliss or misery?

INTRODUCTION: The risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) in patients with a ureteric stent is influenced by several factors such as duration of stenting. Antibiotic prophylaxis has been previously used for the prevention of UTI in patients with common urological pathologies. The aims of this study were to evaluate the incidence, to identify the risk factors of symptomatic UTI in pediatric patients with ureteric stents, and to review the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing the rate of symptomatic UTI compared to a no intervention (control) group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study that was held at a tertiary hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The study included 110 pediatric patients who were younger than 18 years and who required ureteric stent insertion. Disregarding gender difference, the patients were divided into two main groups: an antibiotic group and a control group. The patients in the antibiotic group (Group 1) received continuous antibiotic prophylaxis from the date of ureteral stent insertion until removal, while the patients in the control group (Group 2) received antibiotics during the perioperative period only. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients were included in the final analysis. Group 1 patients who were given antibiotic prophylaxis during the presence of ureteric stent were 54 patients (49%). Group 2 patients who were only given antibiotic during the perioperative period were 56 (51%). Males compromised 73% (n = 80) of the sample population, while females were 27% (n = 30). The prevalence of symptomatic UTI was significantly reduced from 25% in the control group to 7% in the antibiotic group (P < 0.004). CONCLUSION: Antibiotic prophylaxis has significantly reduced the risk of symptomatic UTI by 68% in comparison to the control group.

Role of tubularization of urethral plate in development of urethrocutaneous fistula post hypospadias repair.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to demonstrate the outcome of hypospadias repair in the pediatric population using the tubularized urethral plate technique and to compare the incidence of fistula between incised and unincised urethral plate. METHODOLOGY: This is a retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients who had hypospadias repair in a tertiary hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, between January 2000 and December 2012. They were divided into two main groups according to the status of the urethral plate: Group A included patients who had incision of the urethral plate just before tubularization, and Group B included patients who underwent tubularization without incision. RESULTS: After reviewing 310 medical records, 106 patients were included in the final analysis, with a median age of 2 years (interquartile range = 3 years). There was no statistically significant relationship between types of hypospadias and the development of fistula (P = 0.26). In Group A, we identified 87 patients (82%), and in Group B, there were 19 patients (18%). The overall incidence of fistula was 34.9% (n = 37). The incidence of fistula in Groups A and B was 36% (n = 31) and 32% (n = 6), respectively. This difference was not statistically significant. Despite a high fistula rate, only 12 patients (11%) were required to repeat surgery. CONCLUSION: Incision of the urethral plate did not affect the fistula rate. In comparison to international literature, the incidence of fistula was significantly higher which could be explained by the fact that one-third of those patients had a previous hypospadias repair.