Double-J stent versus percutaneous nephrostomy for emergency upper urinary tract decompression.

Abstract

Urinary tract obstruction is a serious condition that can cause significant morbidity in patients with acute obstructive uropathy. Prompt urinary diversion is necessary to prevent further damage to the kidneys. Retrograde ureteral stenting (RUS) and percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) are the two main treatment options for this condition in many hospitals. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of PCN and RUS for treating acute obstructive uropathy. We conducted a retrospective study of 1500 consecutive patients who presented to the emergency room between January 2017 and December 2021 and underwent either double-J stenting or percutaneous nephrostomy. Patient characteristics and anatomic data were evaluated using abdominal ultrasonography, computed tomography, blood tests, and/or KUB radiography. Out of the 1500 patients, 1172 patients underwent double-J stenting, while 328 patients received percutaneous nephrostomy initially. In 54 cases where double-J stenting was inefficient, subsequent percutaneous nephrostomy was performed. The majority of cases were efficiently treated with double-J stenting. Double-J stenting was an effective method of urinary drainage in most cases of acute obstructive uropathy.