DETERMINING THE OUTCOME OF REDUCED FUNCTIONING KIDNEY AFTER PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROSTOMY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55519/JAMC-S4-14165Keywords:
Unilateral urinary tract obstruction, split renal function, percutaneous nephrostomy, MAG-3 scan, renal salvage, kidney function improvement.Abstract
Background: Significant impairment of renal function can result from unilateral urinary tract blockage, especially if the split renal function falls below 20%. Renal function may be preserved with early intervention using percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN). This study uses Technetium-99m Mercaptoacetyltriglycine (MAG-3) scans to assess how well PCN improves renal function in individuals with severe blockage. Methods: Thirty-six individuals with unilateral urinary tract blockage and divided renal function ≤ 20% were enrolled in this prospective investigation. MAG-3 scans were used to evaluate renal function at baseline and after the intervention. Prior to and following PCN, blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine levels were also measured. To assess changes in renal function and related variables such as age, gender, and comorbidities, paired sample t-tests were used to examine the data. Results: The participants' average age was 41.58 (±14.84) years, and 69.4% of the group were men. The split renal function scores improved significantly after PCN, rising from 16.53 (±1.95) to 23.64 (±3.49) (mean difference: -7.11; 95% CI: -8.54 to -5.68, P<0.001). Creatinine and BUN levels also sharply dropped. The effectiveness of PCN in recovering renal function was confirmed by subgroup analyses that produced similar findings across clinical and demographic parameters. Conclusion: In patients with unilateral blockage and divided renal function < 20%, PCN efficiently improves renal function. In these situations, it is advised as a conventional intervention.
References
1. Hossan MM, Naser MF, Khan MR, Islam MA, Kabir MG. Functional Outcomes After Percutaneous Nephrostomy in Hydronephrotic Kidneys in Adult Population. Bangladesh Journal of Urology. 2018;21(2):93-7.
2. Datu RJ, Arianto E, Astram A, Toreh C. The importance of preoperative evaluation to predict the outcome of percutaneous nephrostomy. Medical Scope Journal. 2024 Jan 28;6(2):172-8.
3. Shoshany O, Erlich T, Golan S, Kleinmann N, Baniel J, Rosenzweig B, Eisner A, Mor Y, Ramon J, Winkler H, Lifshitz D. Ureteric stent versus percutaneous nephrostomy for acute ureteral obstruction-clinical outcome and quality of life: a bi-center prospective study. BMC urology. 2019 Dec;19:1-7.
4. Shoshany O, Erlich T, Golan S, Kleinmann N, Baniel J, Rosenzweig B, Eisner A, Mor Y, Ramon J, Winkler H, Lifshitz D. Ureteric stent versus percutaneous nephrostomy for acute ureteral obstruction-clinical outcome and quality of life: a bi-center prospective study. BMC urology. 2019 Dec;19:1-7.
5. Gnech M, Berrettini A, Lopes RI, Moscardi P, Esposito C, Zucchetta P, Dénes FT, Manzoni G, Braga LH, Castagnetti M. Pyeloplasty vs. nephrectomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in poorly functioning kidneys (differential renal function< 20%): a multicentric study. Journal of pediatric urology. 2019 Oct 1;15(5):553-e1.
6. Ključevšek T, Pirnovar V, Ključevšek D. Percutaneous nephrostomy in the neonatal period: indications, complications, and outcome—a single centre experience. CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology. 2020 Sep;43:1323-8.
7. Soeroto AA, Situmorang GR, Rasyid N. Predictive factor of renal function recoverability in upper-tract obstructive uropathy after percutaneous nephrostomy and Double-J stent insertion in Indonesian National Referral Hospital. F1000Research. 2022 Oct 7;11:1146.
8. Azwadi IZ, Norhayati MN, Abdullah MS. Percutaneous nephrostomy versus retrograde ureteral stenting for acute upper obstructive uropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific reports. 2021;11.
9. Nyamu BK. Impact of Percutaneous Nephrostomy on Clinical Outcome in Advanced Cervical Carcinoma With Obstructive Uropathy at Kenyatta National Hospital From 2016-2019: a Descriptive Retrospective Cohort Study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).
10. Shabaninia S, Yahyazadeh SR, Mousavi A, Kasaeian A. The characteristics and outcomes of patients treated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy according to the preoperative renal function levels. Translational Research in Urology. 2020 Feb 12;2(1):4-8.
11. Eshumani W. Percutaneous nephrostomy versus retrograde ureteral stent in adult patients with malignant ureteral obstruction: comparing changes in the renal function and clinical outcomes (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).
12. Pillai S, Kriplani A, Chawla A, Somani B, Pandey A, Prabhu R, Choudhury A, Pandit S, Taori R, Hegde P. Acute Kidney Injury Post-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PNL): prospective outcomes from a university teaching hospital. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021 Mar 29;10(7):1373.
13. Shi X, Peng Y, Li L, Li X, Wang Q, Zhang W, Dong H, Shen R, Lu C, Liu M, Gao X. Renal function changes after percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with renal calculi with a solitary kidney compared to bilateral kidneys. BJU international. 2018 Oct;122(4):633-8.
14. New FJ, Deverill SJ, Somani BK. Outcomes related to percutaneous nephrostomies (PCN) in malignancy-associated ureteric obstruction: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021 May 27;10(11):2354.
15. Mohamed DA, Abdallah AK, Mehany MM, Mahgoub AA. Effect of implementing nursing guidelines on reduction of acute Complications for patient with Percutaneous nephrostomy admitted to emergency unit. Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal. 2022 Sep 1;10(32):218-30.
16. Zul Khairul Azwadi I, Norhayati MN, Abdullah MS. Percutaneous nephrostomy versus retrograde ureteral stenting for acute upper obstructive uropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports. 2021 Mar 23;11(1):6613.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Agha Mohammad Zubair, Jamal Mustafa khan, Najeebullah, Syed Rafiuddin Shah, Muhammad Yaqoob Zarkoon, Rehan Mohsin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad is an OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL which means that all content is FREELY available without charge to all users whether registered with the journal or not. The work published by J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad is licensed and distributed under the creative commons License CC BY ND Attribution-NoDerivs. Material printed in this journal is OPEN to access, and are FREE for use in academic and research work with proper citation. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad accepts only original material for publication with the understanding that except for abstracts, no part of the data has been published or will be submitted for publication elsewhere before appearing in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. The Editorial Board of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad makes every effort to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of material printed in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. However, conclusions and statements expressed are views of the authors and do not reflect the opinion/policy of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad or the Editorial Board.
USERS are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
AUTHORS retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means including twitter, scholarly collaboration networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.eu, and social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Scholar and any other professional or academic networking site.
