Ureterorenoscopic stone removal without antibiotic prophylaxis.

Maximilian Reinhard Müller, Eva-Maria Prey, Philipp Julian Spachmann, C. Goßler, Maximilian Burger, M. Schnabel
{"title":"Ureterorenoscopic stone removal without antibiotic prophylaxis.","authors":"Maximilian Reinhard Müller, Eva-Maria Prey, Philipp Julian Spachmann, C. Goßler, Maximilian Burger, M. Schnabel","doi":"10.1159/000538856","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose To assess the feasibility of sparing routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients without preoperative urinary tract infection (UTI) undergoing a ureterorenoscopy (URS) for stone removal. Patients and Methods A retrospective, monocentric study was conducted to evaluate the outcome of a modified perioperative antibiotic management strategy according to the principles of antibiotic stewardship (ABS). Patients with preoperative unremarkable urine culture received no antibiotic prophylaxis for ureterorenoscopic stone removal (NoPAP). The NoPAP group was compared to a historic URS cohort, when antibiotic prophylaxis was standard of care. Analysis focused on postoperative complications. Results Postoperative fever occurred in 1% of the NoPAP and 2% of the PAP patients (p= 0.589). Clavien 1-3 complications did not differ between groups with 9% in the NoPAP and 6.2% in the PAP (p= 0.159). No Clavien 4-5 complications were seen. We identified a residual stone (p=0.033) and an ASA-Score 3-4 (p=0.004) as significant risk factors for postoperative fever. By sparing routine antibiotic prophylaxis the overall antibiotic usage was reduced from 100% (PAP) to 8.3% (NoPAP). Conclusion Sparing a routine antibiotic prophylaxis during URS for stone removal seems feasible in patients with unremarkable preoperative urine culture for most of the patients. A prospective validation is warranted.","PeriodicalId":509662,"journal":{"name":"Urologia Internationalis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia Internationalis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000538856","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose To assess the feasibility of sparing routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients without preoperative urinary tract infection (UTI) undergoing a ureterorenoscopy (URS) for stone removal. Patients and Methods A retrospective, monocentric study was conducted to evaluate the outcome of a modified perioperative antibiotic management strategy according to the principles of antibiotic stewardship (ABS). Patients with preoperative unremarkable urine culture received no antibiotic prophylaxis for ureterorenoscopic stone removal (NoPAP). The NoPAP group was compared to a historic URS cohort, when antibiotic prophylaxis was standard of care. Analysis focused on postoperative complications. Results Postoperative fever occurred in 1% of the NoPAP and 2% of the PAP patients (p= 0.589). Clavien 1-3 complications did not differ between groups with 9% in the NoPAP and 6.2% in the PAP (p= 0.159). No Clavien 4-5 complications were seen. We identified a residual stone (p=0.033) and an ASA-Score 3-4 (p=0.004) as significant risk factors for postoperative fever. By sparing routine antibiotic prophylaxis the overall antibiotic usage was reduced from 100% (PAP) to 8.3% (NoPAP). Conclusion Sparing a routine antibiotic prophylaxis during URS for stone removal seems feasible in patients with unremarkable preoperative urine culture for most of the patients. A prospective validation is warranted.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
无需抗生素预防的输尿管镜取石术。
目的 评估对接受输尿管肾镜(URS)取石术的术前无尿路感染(UTI)的患者不使用常规抗生素预防的可行性。患者和方法 开展了一项回顾性单中心研究,以评估根据抗生素监管(ABS)原则修改围手术期抗生素管理策略的效果。术前尿液培养无异常的患者在接受输尿管镜取石术(NoPAP)时无需使用抗生素预防。NoPAP组与历史上的URS组进行了比较,当时抗生素预防是标准护理。分析的重点是术后并发症。结果 无 PAP 组和 PAP 组分别有 1% 和 2% 的患者出现术后发热(P= 0.589)。两组患者的克拉维恩 1-3 级并发症发生率没有差异,NoPAP 患者为 9%,PAP 患者为 6.2%(P= 0.159)。无克拉维恩 4-5 并发症。我们发现,残留结石(p=0.033)和 ASA 评分 3-4 (p=0.004)是术后发热的重要风险因素。通过放弃常规抗生素预防,抗生素的总体使用率从 100%(PAP)降至 8.3%(NoPAP)。结论 对于大多数术前尿培养无异常的患者来说,在尿路结石清除术中不使用常规抗生素预防似乎是可行的。有必要进行前瞻性验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Transient receptor potential channels in sensory mechanisms of the lower urinary tract. Erratum. Ureterorenoscopic stone removal without antibiotic prophylaxis. Primary results of patients with genitourinary malignancies presented at a Molecular Tumor Board. A safer method for disinfection of Bacillus Calmette-Guerin-containing urine: a prospective, randomized study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1