Comparative Evaluation of Nonprocedural Nephrostomy-Related Complications in Patients with Ureteric Obstruction due to Cancer versus Other Causes: Is the Protocol of Routine 3-month Nephrostomy Exchange Optimal for Both Disease Processes?

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate nonprocedural percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) complications and assess whether the protocol of routine 3-month exchange of PCN is optimal in patients with malignant ureteral obstruction (MUO) and benign ureteral obstruction (BUO).

Materials and Methods Retrospective study of 103 patients with a mean age of 48 years (36 men, 67 women) who underwent PCN placement and subsequent PCN exchanges between January 2011 and January 2014 at the institution was conducted. Comparisons of the number of catheter days for those with routine exchange and emergency exchange due to tube obstruction, infection, and mechanical failures were made in patients with MUO and BUO.

Results Of the 256 PCN exchange procedures, 139 were performed in the cancer cohort and 117 in the noncancer cohort. Complications requiring emergent exchanges were more common in cancer patients, particularly due to obstruction, which accounted for 57% of exchanges in MUO with a median onset of 50 days. In contrast, the majority of noncancer patients in this study did not require emergent exchange before 3 months. Routine exchanges accounted for 43% and 55% of exchanges in MUO and BUO, respectively. In both the groups, only a small proportion of emergent tube exchanges occurred beyond 105 days.

Conclusion A routine 3-month nephrostomy exchange protocol may not be ideal for all patients. The optimal timing for exchange of nephrostomy appears to be earlier for patients with MUO compared with those with BUO. A prospective study is required to define an optimal policy for postprocedural nephrostomy tube care in both the cohorts.

Keywords

nephrostomy tube exchange - malignant ureteral obstruction - benign ureteral obstruction

• References

• 1 Goodwin WE, Casey WC, Woolf W. Percutaneous trocar (needle) nephrostomy in hydronephrosis. J Am Med Assoc 1955; 157 (11) 891-894
• 2 Patel U, Hussain FF. Percutaneous nephrostomy of nondilated renal collecting systems with fluoroscopic guidance: technique and results. Radiology 2004; 233 (01) 226-233
• 3 Farrell TA, Hicks ME. A review of radiologically guided percutaneous nephrostomies in 303 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1997; 8 (05) 769-774
• 4 Hausegger KA, Portugaller HR. Percutaneous nephrostomy and antegrade ureteral stenting: technique-indications-complications. Eur Radiol 2006; 16 (09) 2016-2030
• 5 Zagoria RJ, Dyer RB. Do's and don't's of percutaneous nephrostomy. Acad Radiol 1999; 6 (06) 370-377
• 6 Nephrostomy and Biliary Tube Management. A Review of the Clinical Evidence and Guidelines. Ottawa, ON, Canada: CADTH Rapid Response Reports; 2014
• 7 Bahu R, Chaftari AM, Hachem RY. et al. Nephrostomy tube related pyelonephritis in patients with cancer: epidemiology, infection rate and risk factors. J Urol 2013; 189 (01) 130-135
• 8 Plesinac-Karapandzic V, Masulovic D, Markovic B. et al. Percutaneous nephrostomy in the management of advanced and terminal-stage gynecologic malignancies: outcome and complications. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2010; 31 (06) 645-650
• 9 Lee WJ, Patel U, Patel S, Pillari GP. Emergency percutaneous nephrostomy: results and complications. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1994; 5 (01) 135-139
• 10 Stables DP. Percutaneous nephrostomy: techniques, indications, and results. Urol Clin North Am 1982; 9 (01) 15-29
• 11 Hsu L, Li H, Pucheril D. et al. Use of percutaneous nephrostomy and ureteral stenting in management of ureteral obstruction. World J Nephrol 2016; 5 (02) 172-181
• 12 Monsky WL, Molloy C, Jin B. et al. Quality-of-life assessment after palliative interventions to manage malignant ureteral obstruction. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2013; 36 (05) 1355-1363