The Instrumentation and Surgery of Ureteric Calculi

Alken, P.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-70712-4_9

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4,6–8,13,14,18 There are certainly historical cases of RFR due to ureteric obstruction causing perirenal abscesses and groups have reported 10.5–16.9% of these abscesses are attributable to ureteric obstruction (with causes including ureterolithiasis). 19–21 However, the converse association is less significant – only one perirenal abscess was reported in 476 patients across the seven case series of RFR published in the last two decades, occurring after intervention and discussed below. 4,6–8,13,14,18 This low incidence of abscess formation could be attributable to concomitant antibiotic treatment, indiscriminately used prophylactically in most cases.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, a conservative approach appears to be safe when patients are selected carefully, and the majority of authors support this approach. 4,7–9…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…RFR is an uncommon presentation of upper urinary tract obstruction, being seen in 1–20 cases per year depending on the patient population of the reporting centre. 4–9…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Managing renal forniceal rupture secondary to ureteric calculi in line with the NICE 2019 Renal and Ureteric Stone Guidelines

Harvey

Rudman

Gall

2020

Journal of Clinical Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To synthesise all available data to determine the best management for urolithiasis-related renal forniceal rupture (RFR), with particular reference to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2019 Renal and Ureteric Stone Guidelines. Methods: PubMed search to March 2020 using permutations of renal, forniceal, fornix, calyceal, calyx and rupture. Non-English abstracts, editorial comments, letters to the editor and abstracts of conference proceedings were excluded. Results: An initial PubMed search retrieved 126 titles which were screened for relevance and five further titles were added from associated references. 64 abstracts were subsequently assessed, with 25 articles proceeding to full paper review. Conclusions: In cases of RFR secondary to ureteric calculi, management options, including conservative management, for the stone should be considered without the decision being influenced by the presence of the rupture. Perirenal abscesses secondary to RFR are rare, occurring in less than 0.25% of cases. Evidence supports restricting antibiotic prophylaxis to patients with a history of recurrent urinary tract infections or a positive urine culture, in line with the European Association of Urology’s antibiotic stewardship general management principle. RFR is not inherently a contraindication to primary ureteroscopy, which has particularly relevance with the drive to meet the 2019 NICE recommendations. Level of evidence: Not applicable to this literature review.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, a conservative approach appears to be safe when patients are selected carefully, and the majority of authors support this approach. 4,7–9…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managing renal forniceal rupture secondary to ureteric calculi in line with the NICE 2019 Renal and Ureteric Stone Guidelines

Harvey

Rudman

Gall

2020

Journal of Clinical Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The prevalence of severe complications (i.e. complications requiring an open operation) is about 1,5% [5]. Conditions for suc cessful removal are not very clear, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%