17 August 2024: Articles
Postoperative Renal Abscess Following Tip-Flexible Suctioning Ureteral Access Sheath and Digital Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy: A Case Report
Unknown etiology, Unusual clinical course, Unusual or unexpected effect of treatment, Diagnostic / therapeutic accidents
Lin Xiong1ABDEF*, Kristine Joy Shan Kwan 23CDEF, Geng-Geng Wei1ABD, Xiang Xu1BCF, Zhen-Quan Lu1AEGDOI: 10.12659/AJCR.944782
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e944782
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath (TFS-UAS) can be bent under flexible ureteroscopes, which facilitates removal of renal stone segments by irrigation and suctioning effects. Small-scale comparative studies found it safer and more efficacious than traditional UAS. However, complications such as renal abscess were not documented after TFS-UAS combined with digital FURS.
CASE REPORT: A 57-year-old woman had right lumbar pain that persisted for 1 year. A plain computed tomography (CT) scan revealed multiple renal pelvicalyceal stones (maximum diameter 20×9 mm). She was admitted to undergo elective surgery with a TFS-UAS combined with digital flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy. The operation was deemed successful and she was given postoperative antibiotics for 2 days before discharge. Eight postoperative days later, she was admitted to the emergency department due to high fever (39.6°C). Plain CT revealed intact double-J stents and no abnormalities. She was readmitted to the urological department to receive antibiotic therapy, which progressed to septic shock (blood pressure 80/50 mmHg) and required immediate transfer to the intensive care unit. Contrast-enhanced CT revealed a right renal abscess. She was promptly resuscitated and given stronger antibiotics. She recovered well and was discharged with 2-week oral levofloxacin treatment. Follow-up ultrasound found no renal abscess.
CONCLUSIONS: While TFS-UAS with digital FURs is an effective approach for multiple renal stones, there is a risk of postoperative renal abscess, possibly due to altered intrarenal pressure.
Keywords: Abscess, Kidney Calculi, Postoperative Complications, Shock, Septic
Introduction
Ureteral access sheaths (UAS) are designed to facilitate flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) in the treatment of urolithiasis by improving surgical vision, reducing intrarenal pressure, and decreasing postoperative infectious complications [1,2]. The tip-flexible suctioning (TFS) UAS is a relatively novel device, and small-scale retrospective cohort studies found that it was superior to traditional UAS [1,3,4]. Reported complications of the TFS-UAS combined with FURS included perirenal infection, urinary extravasation, and bleeding. However, the incidence of postoperative renal abscess formation was not reported in the literature.
We present the case of a 57-year-old woman who underwent TFS-UAS with digital flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for multiple right renal stones. Stone clearance was 100%. However, she had renal abscess formation 8 days later, which progressed to septic shock. She was successfully treated with more aggressive antibiotics.
Case Report
A 57-year-old woman presented with right lumbar pain that had persisted for 1 year. She was afebrile. A plain computed tomography (CT) scan revealed multiple renal pelvicalyceal stones (maximum diameter 20×9 mm; maximum CT value 1373 Hounsfield units [HU]; average CT value 1093 HU; Figure 1A) and a stone located in the lower calyx (5×4 mm; Figure 1B). Biochemistry results revealed a white blood cell count of 8.19×109/L with 74.5% leukocyte ratio, and serum procalcitonin was 0.07 ng/mL. Preoperative urine culture was negative. She denied a history of any underlying medical illness.
She was scheduled for elective digital disposable flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (7.5 Fr; HU30S, Shenzhen HugeMed Medical Technical Development Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China) combined with a novel TFS-UAS (12–14 Fr; 35 cm; Shenzhen Kangyibo Technology Development Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China; Figure 2). The setting of the negative-pressure suctioning system was 200 mmHg. The irrigation system pump system was initially maintained at a 0.2 L/min flow rate during stone fragmentation and switched to 0.5 L/min during suction with 30 mmHg pressure throughout. Holmium laser lithotripsy (Lumenis Pulse™ 100H Holmium Laser System, Boston Scientific, NJ, USA) was performed at 0.6 J energy setting and 50 Hz frequency. A Cook® stone removal basket was used to move the stone located at the lower calyx to the upper calyx and fragmentation. All fragments were effectively removed and a 5 Fr double-J stent was implanted at the right ureter before conclusion of the operation. The operation lasted 88 minutes. Approximately 5 L of irrigation saline was used. The patient received postoperative antibiotics for 48 hours and was discharged on the second postoperative day.
Eight postoperative days later, she presented to the emergency department due to persistent high fever unresolved by home remedies. Her body temperature was 39.6°C and other vitals were stable. Emergency plain CT was performed and showed that the double-J stent was intact and there was no residual stone. She was admitted to the urology department for observation while she received intravenous Ertapenem. Her condition deteriorated as blood pressure dropped to 80/50 mmHg and body temperature was 41.3°C, which immediately led to the suspicion of septic shock. She was immediately transferred to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) to receive resuscitation and IV meropenem. Enhanced CT revealed formation a right renal abscess (Figure 3). She remained in the ICU for 4 days and was transferred back to the urology department to continue antibiotic therapy with levofloxacin once she became stable. Urine culture showed
Discussion
Technical advancements and increased experience in FURS combined with laser lithotripsy has yielded excellent outcomes in the management of stones. There has been an increasing trend of employing FURs in treating upper urinary tract stones with diameters ≥2 cm rather than percutaneous nephrolithotomy [5]. The addition of UAS in FURS remains controversial. A statewide collaborative study demonstrated that UAS significantly increased the odds of postoperative emergency department visits and hospitalization for flank pain, other unspecified causes, hematuria, urinary tract infection (UTI)/pyelonephritis, and fever [6]. However, this is the first documented case of renal abscess following uncomplicated FURS.
There are many options for conventional UAS, but 12/14F UAS are regarded as the universal UAS that accepts all FURS [7]. To maintain a safe intrarenal pelvic pressure (IPP), it is recommended to follow the basic rule where the ratio of ureteroscope-sheath diameter (RUSD) is ≤0.75 [8]. TFS-UAS are often combined with negative-pressure suctioning systems, also known as flexible vacuum-assisted UAS, which are considered an upgrade to traditional negative-pressure UAS [9]. When utilizing negative-pressure UAS, an in vitro study recommended that a RUSD <0.85 to maintain a safe IPP [10]. In our case, the RUSD was 0.63, which was much lower than recommended. The reduced and controlled IPP allows FURS to cross the ureteropelvic junction and enter the renal pelvis and calices without causing impact [3]. The suction system, combined with the irrigation flow, can effectively remove renal stones, thereby increasing stone clearance rates [11].
In our case, the patient did not present with any risk suggestive of postoperative infectious complications. Therefore, it was suspected that her sepsis due to the combination of increased IPP and the presence of bacteria in the urinary tract. A systematic analysis revealed that a prolonged operative time, recent history of positive urine culture, UTI, or antibiotic use, pyuria/nitrites, small-caliber ureteral access sheath, struvite stone, high irrigation rate, and comorbidities are independent risk factors for infection after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) [12]. Gauher et al compared the efficacy of 2 different sizes of flexible and navigable suction UAS in RIRS and found that the 10 Fr size demonstrated a higher stone-free rate than the 12 Fr size, and no infectious complications occurred [13]. However, a retrospective by Zhang et al found that the incidence of infectious complications was significantly lower in TFS-UAS than traditional UAS (8.8% vs 18.8%,
Chen et al used a patented designed intelligent irrigation and suctioning intraluminal pressure-control platform and integrated pressure-measuring suctioning UAS during FURS suctioning lithotripsy that could effectively achieve excellent stone-free rates in the management of 2–3 cm upper urinary tract stones, which was comparable to the effect of percutaneous nephrolithotomy [14]. Novel ureteroscopes have also been developed to sense IPP [15,16], further research is needed to elucidate its efficacy. Regardless, it is necessary to carefully use these devices to reduce the risk of postoperative UTI.
The inability to monitor intraoperative IPP is a shortcoming of our patient’s operation. IPP fluctuations and sudden raise may have caused our patient’s postoperative renal abscess formation. Our center is experienced in performing RIRS for urinary tract stones, and we found the novel TFS-UAS with its flexible tip is an innovative design that helps reach the target calyx. The addition of a negative-pressure suctioning system can effectively suck out most debris from ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Even small, residual segments that are asymptomatic can be removed, which can possibly reduce the chances of stone relapse within 5 years after surgery [17]. Additionally, the need of using stone-retrieval baskets is reduced, thereby reducing operation cost [1,18]. Nonetheless, this case report shows the risk of renal abscess formation after uncomplicated TFSUAS combined with digital flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy.
Conclusions
TFS-UAS combined with digital flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy can achieve excellent stone clearance. However, intraoperative IPP changes can increase the risk of renal abscess formation, even after an uncomplicated procedure.
Figures
Figure 1.. Preoperative computed tomography urology revealing multiple right renal stones with maximum diameter measuring 20×9 mm (A) and 1 located at the lower calyx (B). Figure 2.. The novel tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath used during the operation. Figure 3.. Follow-up computed tomography urology showing the postoperative right renal abscess (yellow circle) of the female patient at coronal plane (A) and axial plane (B).References:
1.. Zhang Z, Xie T, Li F, Comparison of traditional and novel tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath combined with flexible ureteroscope to treat unilateral renal calculi: World J Urol, 2023; 41(12); 3619-27
2.. Patel N, Monga M, Ureteral access sheaths: a comprehensive comparison of physical and mechanical properties: Int Braz J Urol, 2018; 44(3); 524-535
3.. Chen Y, Li C, Gao L, Novel flexible vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheath can actively control intrarenal pressure and obtain a complete stone-free status: J Endourol, 2022; 36(9); 1143-48
4.. Liang H, Liang L, Lin Y, Application of tip-bendable ureteral access sheath in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: An initial experience of 224 cases: BMC Urol, 2023; 23(1); 175
5.. Gerber RC, Best SL, Hedican SP, Nakada SY, Flexible ureteroscopy as the new standard for the management of renal transplant urolithiasis <15 mm: A single-center experience: J Endourol, 2021; 35(10); 1443-47
6.. Meier K, Hiller S, Dauw C, Understanding ureteral access sheath use within a statewide collaborative and its effect on surgical and clinical outcomes: J Endourol, 2021; 35(9); 1340-47
7.. Al-Qahtani SM, Letendre J, Thomas A, Which ureteral access sheath is compatible with your flexible ureteroscope?: J Endourol, 2014; 28(3); 286-90
8.. Fang L, Xie G, Zheng Z, The effect of ratio of endoscope-sheath diameter on intrapelvic pressure during flexible ureteroscopic lasertripsy: J Endourol, 2019; 33(2); 132-39
9.. Ostergar A, Wong D, Shiang A, Intrarenal pressure with vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheaths using an in situ cadaveric porcine model: J Endourol, 2023; 37(3); 353-57
10.. Shi J, Huang T, Song B, The optimal ratio of endoscope-sheath diameter with negative-pressure ureteral access sheath: An in vitro research: World J Urol, 2024; 42(1); 122
11.. Yu Y, Chen Y, Zhou X, Comparison of novel flexible and traditional ureteral access sheath in retrograde intrarenal surgery: World J Urol, 2024; 42(1); 7
12.. Dybowski B, Bres-Niewada E, Rzeszutko M, Risk factors for infectious complications after retrograde intrarenal surgery – a systematic review and narrative synthesis: Cent European J Urol, 2021; 74(3); 437-45
13.. Gauhar V, Traxer O, Castellani D, A feasibility study on clinical utility, efficacy and limitations of 2 types of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths in retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones: Urology, 2023; 178; 173-79
14.. Chen H, Qiu X, Du C, The comparison study of flexible ureteroscopic suctioning lithotripsy with intelligent pressure control versus minimally invasive percutaneous suctioning nephrolithotomy in treating renal calculi of 2 to 3 cm in size: Surg Innov, 2019; 26(5); 528-35
15.. Chew BH, Shalabi N, Herout R, Intrarenal pressure measured using a novel flexible ureteroscope with pressure sensing capabilities: A study of the effects of ureteral access sheath, irrigation, and working channel accessories: J Endourol, 2023; 37(11); 1200-8
16.. Bhojani N, Koo KC, Bensaadi K, Retrospective first-in-human use of the LithoVue™ Elite ureteroscope to measure intrarenal pressure: BJU Int, 2023; 132(6); 678-85
17.. Sorensen MD, Harper JD, Borofsky MS, Removal of small, asymptomatic kidney stones and incidence of relapse: N Engl J Med, 2022; 387(6); 506-13
18.. Ding J, Su T, Zhang X, Omnidirectional (flexible) ureteral access sheath: Safety, efficacy, and initial experience report [published correction appears in J Endourol. 2023;37(12):1335].: J Endourol, 2023; 37(11); 1184-90
Figures
In Press
Case report
Aortic Homografts in Surgical Management of Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis: A Case Series from GreeceAm J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.945030
Case report
Retrograde Colonic Intussusception After Colonoscopy without Organic Pathology: A Case ReportAm J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.945423
Case report
Dual Hepatic Injury from Refeeding Syndrome and Starvation in a Malnourished Woman After Bariatric Surgery:...Am J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.944088
Case report
Rapid Healing of Palatal Necrosis with Active Oxygen Gel: A Case Report and Management StrategyAm J Case Rep In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.945135
Most Viewed Current Articles
21 Jun 2024 : Case report 58,089
Intracranial Parasitic Fetus in a Living Infant: A Case Study with Surgical Intervention and Prognosis Anal...DOI :10.12659/AJCR.944371
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e944371
07 Mar 2024 : Case report 42,685
Neurocysticercosis Presenting as Migraine in the United StatesDOI :10.12659/AJCR.943133
Am J Case Rep 2024; 25:e943133
10 Jan 2022 : Case report 32,469
A Report on the First 7 Sequential Patients Treated Within the C-Reactive Protein Apheresis in COVID (CACOV...DOI :10.12659/AJCR.935263
Am J Case Rep 2022; 23:e935263
23 Feb 2022 : Case report 19,983
Penile Necrosis Associated with Local Intravenous Injection of CocaineDOI :10.12659/AJCR.935250
Am J Case Rep 2022; 23:e935250