Assuntos
Inibidores da Enzima Conversora de Angiotensina/administração & dosagem , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Nefropatias Diabéticas/tratamento farmacológico , Losartan/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Idoso , Intervalos de Confiança , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/diagnóstico , Nefropatias Diabéticas/etiologia , Progressão da Doença , Método Duplo-Cego , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Testes de Função Renal , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Probabilidade , Valores de Referência , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
PURPOSE: We compare the efficacy of percutaneous nephrostomy with retrograde ureteral catheterization for renal drainage in cases of obstruction and infection associated with ureteral calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomized 42 consecutive patients presenting with obstructing ureteral calculi and clinical signs of infection (temperature greater than 38 C and/or white blood count greater than 17,000/mm.3) to drainage with percutaneous nephrostomy or retrograde ureteral catheterization. Preoperative patient and stone characteristics, procedural parameters, clinical outcomes and costs were assessed for each group. RESULTS: Urine cultures obtained at drainage were positive in 62.9% of percutaneous nephrostomy and 19.1% of retrograde ureteral catheterization patients. There was no significant difference in the time to treatment between the 2 groups. Procedural and fluoroscopy times were significantly shorter in the retrograde ureteral catheterization (32.7 and 5.1 minutes, respectively) compared with the percutaneous nephrostomy (49.2 and 7.7 minutes, respectively) group. One treatment failure occurred in the percutaneous nephrostomy group, which was successfully salvaged with retrograde ureteral catheterization. Time to normal temperature was 2.3 days in the percutaneous nephrostomy and 2.6 in the retrograde ureteral catheterization group, and time to normal white blood count was 2 days in the percutaneous nephrostomy and 1.7 days in the retrograde ureteral catheterization group (p not significant). Length of stay was 4.5 days in the percutaneous nephrostomy group compared with 3.2 days in the retrograde ureteral catheterization group (p not significant). Cost analysis revealed that retrograde ureteral catheterization was twice as costly as percutaneous nephrostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Retrograde ureteral catheterization and percutaneous nephrostomy effectively relieve obstruction and infection due to ureteral calculi. Neither modality demonstrated superiority in promoting a more rapid recovery after drainage. Percutaneous nephrostomy is less costly than retrograde ureteral catheterization. The decision of which mode of drainage to use may be based on logistical factors, surgeon preference and stone characteristics.
