Sri Sivalingam

Objective: National guidelines recommend peri-procedural antibiotics prior to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), yet it is not clear which is superior. We conducted a randomized trial to compare two guideline recommended antibiotics: ciprofloxacin (cipro) versus cefazolin, on PCNL outcomes, focusing on the development of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Methods: Adult patients who were not considered high risk for surgical or infectious complications undergoing PCNL were randomized to receive either cipro or cefazolin perioperatively. All had negative pre-operative urine cultures. Demographic and peri-operative data were collected, including SIRS criteria, intra-operative urine culture, duration of hospitalization, and need for intensive care. SIRS is defined by ≥2 of the following: body temperature < 96.8 °F or >100.4 °F, heart rate > 90 bpm, respiratory rate >20 per minute, WBC count 12,000 cells/mm³. Results: One hundred and forty seven patients were enrolled and randomized (79 cefazolin, 68 cipro). All pre-operative characteristics were similar (p>0.05), except for mean age, which was higher in the cipro group (64 vs. 57, p=0.03). Intra and post-operative findings were similar, with no difference between groups (p>0.05), except a longer mean hospital stay in the cefazolin group (2 hours longer, p=0.02). There was no difference between SIRS episodes on both univariate and multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Despite the relatively broader coverage for urinary tract pathogens with ciprofloxacin, this prospective randomized trial did not show superiority over cefazolin. Our findings therefore support two appropriate options for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing PCNL who are non-high risk for infectious complications.

Purpose:Pain is the leading cause for unplanned emergency department visits and readmissions after ureteroscopy (URS), making post-operative analgesic stewardship a priority given the current opioi...

Smart technology (ST) can enhance chronic disease management, yet little is known about the benefits of ST on kidney stone prevention. Our aim was to prospectively evaluate the impact of ST on follow-up adherence rates and urine output (UOP) in patients with nephrolithiasis. Kidney stone patients with low UOP (< 2.5 L/24 h) were randomized into three intervention groups: (1) standard dietary/medical counseling alone (control), (2) control + smartphone fluid management application (app), and (3) control + smart water bottle (bottle). Demographics, adherence rates, kidney stone events, and 24 h urine data were collected and analyzed at baseline, 3–6, and 12 months. We randomized 111 patients (37 per group), of which 20 (55%), 8 (26%), and 10 (33%) patients completed the 12 month follow-up in the control, app, and bottle groups respectively. Control group patients were the most likely to adhere to follow-up (p = 0.004). Overall mean UOP increased by 0.4 L in each group (p < 0.05), with no difference in mean baseline 24 h UOP (1.6 L) and 12 month 24 h UOP (2.0 L) between groups (p > 0.05). Twenty-nine percent of patients achieved a daily UOP goal of > 2.5 L across the treatment groups (p < 0.001). In this prospective study, the 24 h UOP improved across all groups compared to baseline, although adherence to follow-up remained low. Furthermore, the use of ST did not further augment UOP, underscoring the importance of dietary/medical counseling for kidney stone prevention.

Introduction: A number of clinical and radiological predictors of either stone impaction or ureteral stone passage (SP) have been proposed. We aimed at identifying the key predictors of successful SP by using readily available CT-based tools/measurements. Methods: Patients presenting to the emergency department from February 2017 to February 2018 with an acute unilateral ureteral stone confirmed on non-contrast CT and managed conservatively were followed for SP. Patients with renal impairment, sepsis or requiring emergent intervention were excluded. Patients were followed at 1 month to confirm SP (stone collection/repeat imaging) or failure of passage. The CT variables analyzed included: Stone factors [location, size, volume, HU density (HUD)], impaction factors [ureteral HUD above and below the stone, maximal ureteral wall thickness (UWT) at the stone site, contralateral UWT, and ureteral diameter above and below the stone]. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of SP. Results: Forty-nine patients met study inclusion criteria, of whom 32 (65.3%) passed the stone without further intervention. Patients with successful passage were more likely to have smaller, lower volume and less dense stones located in the distal ureter ( p < 0.01). Lower ureteral HUD below the stone, lower maximal UWT, and lower ureteral diameter above the stone were associated with successful passage ( p < 0.01). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, only maximal UWT at the stone site was a significant independent predictor of SP outcome ( p = 0.01). Youden's criterion identified 2.3 mm as the optimal UWT cut-off point, which will accurately predict SP with 82.4% sensitivity and 87.5% specificity. Conclusions: Maximal UWT at the stone site was the most significant predictor of successful passage in acute unilateral ureteral stones, with an optimal cut-off point of 2.3 mm. Further prospective studies are needed to accurately predict spontaneous SP.

Introduction: We sought to assess the accuracy of using stone volume (SV) estimated with a software algorithm as a predictor for stone passage in a trial of medical expulsive therapy (MET). Methods: We identified patients with ureteral stones discharged from the ER on MET. Patients with infection, non-ureteral stones, or needing immediate surgical intervention were excluded. For each stone, longest dimension (LD) was recorded and SV was estimated by a computed tomography (CT)-based region growing (RG) algorithm and standard ellipsoid formula (EF). Stone passage within 30 days was assessed via electronic chart and followup phone call. Results: Fifty-one patients were included for analysis (53±16.7 years, 24% female). The mean LD was 4.85±2.02 mm. The mean SV was similar by EF and RG (0.051±0.057cm3 vs. 0.049± 0.052 cm3; p=0.28). Thirty-three (65%) patients passed their stone, while 18 (35%) did not. The mean LD for passed stones vs. failed passage was 4.1±1.7 mm vs. 6.2±1.8 mm (p=0.0002); the mean EF volume was 0.028±0.035 cm3 vs. 0.093±0.066 cm3 (p=0.00007); and the mean volume by RG was 0.028±0.027cm3 vs. 0.088±0.063 cm3 (p=0.00005). Conclusions: The clinical utility of using SV estimated by software algorithm as a predictor for success of MET has not previously been examined. We demonstrate that spontaneously passed stones had a significantly smaller volume than those requiring intervention. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and establish volume thresholds for probability of stone passage.