Home
Abstract
My Abstract(s)
Login
ePosters
Back
Final Presentation Format
Podium Abstract
Eposter Presentation
Eposter in PDF Format
Accept format: PDF. The file size should not be more than 5MB
Eposter in Image Format
Accept format: PNG/JPG/WEBP. The file size should not be more than 2MB
Presentation Date / Time
Submission Status
Submitted
Abstract
Abstract Title
The Incidence of Re-Look Pyeloscopy within an Australian Tertiary Stone Hospital.
Presentation Type
Podium Abstract
Manuscript Type
Basic Research
Abstract Category *
Endourology: Urolithiasis
Author's Information
Number of Authors (including submitting/presenting author) *
4
No more than 10 authors can be listed (as per the Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines).
Please ensure the authors are listed in the right order.
Country
Australia
Co-author 1
David Armany davidarmany72@gmail.com Blacktown-Mount Druitt Hospitals Urology Sydney Australia *
Co-author 2
Lequang Vo lequang.vo@health.nsw.gov.au Blacktown-Mount Druitt Hospitals Urology Sydney Australia -
Co-author 3
Sriskanthan Baskaranathan sriskanthan.baskaranathan@health.nsw.gov.au Blacktown-Mount Druitt Hospitals Urology Sydney Australia -
Co-author 4
Henry Woo Henry.Woo@health.nsw.gov.au Blacktown-Mount Druitt Hospitals Urology Sydney Australia -
Co-author 5
-
Co-author 6
-
Co-author 7
-
Co-author 8
-
Co-author 9
-
Co-author 10
-
Co-author 11
Co-author 12
Co-author 13
Co-author 14
Co-author 15
Co-author 16
Co-author 17
Co-author 18
Co-author 19
Co-author 20
Abstract Content
Introduction
To evaluate the incidence rates of Re-look pyeloscopy’s in the management of renal stones>2cm in a large Australian tertiary stone hospital, focusing on factors that may influence repeat procedures and patient outcomes.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective analysis was performed evaluating patients who underwent pyeloscopy’s with laser lithotripsy for renal stones >2cm between January 2022 – January 2024 at Blacktown Hospital, Sydney. Data collected included baseline demographics, stone characteristics, perioperative parameters and rate of re-look procedures required. Outcomes for both initial and relook pyeloscopy’s included stone-free rates (SFR) and complications. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of re-look pyeloscopy and sepsis.
Results
141 patients presented with renal stones >2cm, 91% (n=129) of which required at least one re-look pyeloscopy. Predictors of re-look pyeloscopy included an initial SFR<80% (OR; 3.7, 95% CI: 1.9-5.6, P<0.001) and larger stone burden of >2.5cm (OR: 4.9, 95% CI: 2.2 – 6.7, P=0.003). The mean number of procedures patients underwent was 2.2 (IQR: 1.2-4.7). SFR. Complication rates include sepsis (n=11), stent colic (n=38), fragment colic (n=3), and renal hematoma requiring transfusion (n=1). Predictors for post operative laser sepsis included >4 re-look pyeloscopy’s (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.9 – 2.4, P=0.02).
Conclusions
Relook pyeloscopy’s achieve a reasonable SFR with an acceptable risk profile, offering clinicians a minimally invasive option for large renal stones. However, the risk of sepsis with greater than 4 procedures should be carefully considered.
Keywords
PCNL, renal stones, multiple pyeloscopies, urolithiasis
Figure 1
Figure 1 Caption
Figure 2
Figure 2 Caption
Figure 3
Figure 3 Caption
Figure 4
Figure 4 Caption
Figure 5
Figure 5 Caption
Character Count
1586
Vimeo Link
Presentation Details
Session
Free Paper Podium(02): Endourology (A)
Date
Aug. 14 (Thu.)
Time
16:36 - 16:42
Presentation Order
12