Aim: To compare of efficacy and safety bet-ween percutaneous nephrostomy and ureteral double J stenting in patients with postrenal acute renal failure (ARF).
Material and Methods: A total of 59 patients who presented with postrenal ARF due to urete-ral obstruction and who underwent percutaneous nephrostomy or ureteral double j stenting betwe-en January 2011 and April 2016 in our clinic were included in this study. Patients were divided into two groups with ureteral double j stents (Group 1) and the other with percutaneous nephrostomy (Group 2). These patients were then evaluated by daily serum urea and creatinine. Patients were compared in terms of creatinine reduction rate, total creatinine change and complications.
Results: There were 40 patients in Group 1 in which renal pelvis drainage performed with ureteral double j stent and 19 patients in Group 2 with percutaneous nephrostomy drainage. Mean follow-up time was 6.8 ± 10.3 days and 7.6 ± 4.0 days for Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. Desc-rease rate of creatinine was significantly higher in percutaneous nephrostomy group(p<0.001). Decrease of mean creatinine level by daily was 0.31 ± 0.33 and 0.46 ± 0.35 in ureteral double j stent and percutaneous nephrostomy group, respectively(p=0.103). Time to basal creatinine le-vel was similar in both groups. Patients in Group 2 had higher hydronephrosis grades(0.036). Accor-ding to the Clavien-Dindo classification, the two groups were similar in terms of complications.
Conclusion: Double j stent or percutaneous nephrostomy insertion in patients presenting with postrenal ARF due to ureteral obstruction was fo-und to be similar in terms of efficacy and safety.
Keywords: double j stent; percutaneous nephrostomy; postrenal acute renal failure
Abstract
Aim: To compare of efficacy and safety bet-ween percutaneous nephrostomy and ureteral double J stenting in patients with postrenal acute renal failure (ARF).
Material and Methods: A total of 59 patients who presented with postrenal ARF due to urete-ral obstruction and who underwent percutaneous nephrostomy or ureteral double j stenting betwe-en January 2011 and April 2016 in our clinic were included in this study. Patients were divided into two groups with ureteral double j stents (Group 1) and the other with percutaneous nephrostomy (Group 2). These patients were then evaluated by daily serum urea and creatinine. Patients were compared in terms of creatinine reduction rate, total creatinine change and complications.
Results: There were 40 patients in Group 1 in which renal pelvis drainage performed with ureteral double j stent and 19 patients in Group 2 with percutaneous nephrostomy drainage. Mean follow-up time was 6.8 ± 10.3 days and 7.6 ± 4.0 days for Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. Desc-rease rate of creatinine was significantly higher in percutaneous nephrostomy group(p<0.001). Decrease of mean creatinine level by daily was 0.31 ± 0.33 and 0.46 ± 0.35 in ureteral double j stent and percutaneous nephrostomy group, respectively(p=0.103). Time to basal creatinine le-vel was similar in both groups. Patients in Group 2 had higher hydronephrosis grades(0.036). Accor-ding to the Clavien-Dindo classification, the two groups were similar in terms of complications.
Conclusion: Double j stent or percutaneous nephrostomy insertion in patients presenting with postrenal ARF due to ureteral obstruction was fo-und to be similar in terms of efficacy and safety.
Keywords: double j stent; percutaneous nephrostomy; postrenal acute renal failure