Abstract
Purpose: To compare the results of percutaneous and open drainage for perinephric abscess. Materials and Methods: The files of 86 patients who underwent drainage for perinephric abscesses from April 2001 through March 2008 were evaluated. The method of drainage for each patient was performed according to the clinical decision of the treating physician. Percutaneous tube drain (PCD) was used for drainage of the abscess in 43 patients (group 1), while the other 43 patients were managed with open drainage (group 2). Cure was defined as complete obliteration of the abscess cavity. The cure rates, complications, and hospital stay were compared between both groups. Results: The study included 50 males and 36 females with mean age 44.2 ± 17.3. The most common predisposing factors were diabetes mellitus and/or stones. Open drainage of perinephric abscesses resulted in a statistically significant higher cure rate (98% versus 69%, p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay than PCD (3.6 versus 6 days, p < 0.001). Failure of complete drainage of multilocular abscess was observed in 8 of 13 cases (61.5%) in group 1 and one of 38 cases (2.6%) in group 2 (P < 0.001). Complications were observed in 7% of group 1 and 11.5% in group 2 (P = 0.45). After mean follow-up of 19 months, 9 of 46 patients (19.6%) had recurrence; 7 of them were in group 1. Conclusion: Percutaneous drainage of perinephric abscess is an effective minimally invasive treatment. However, PCD is not the optimal method for drainage of multilocular abscess because open surgical drainage provided higher cure rates and shorter hospitalization than PCD.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 29-35 |
Number of pages | 7 |
Journal | International Braz J Urol |
Volume | 36 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Jan 2010 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Abscess
- Infection
- Kidney
- Percutaneous
- Perinephric
- Surgery
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Urology
Cite this
What is the best drainage method for a perinephric abscess? / EL-Nahas, Ahmed R.; Faisal, Raed; Mohsen, Tarek; AL-Marhoon, Mohammed S.; Abol-Enein, Hassan.
In: International Braz J Urol, Vol. 36, No. 1, 01.2010, p. 29-35.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - What is the best drainage method for a perinephric abscess?
AU - EL-Nahas, Ahmed R.
AU - Faisal, Raed
AU - Mohsen, Tarek
AU - AL-Marhoon, Mohammed S.
AU - Abol-Enein, Hassan
PY - 2010/1
Y1 - 2010/1
N2 - Purpose: To compare the results of percutaneous and open drainage for perinephric abscess. Materials and Methods: The files of 86 patients who underwent drainage for perinephric abscesses from April 2001 through March 2008 were evaluated. The method of drainage for each patient was performed according to the clinical decision of the treating physician. Percutaneous tube drain (PCD) was used for drainage of the abscess in 43 patients (group 1), while the other 43 patients were managed with open drainage (group 2). Cure was defined as complete obliteration of the abscess cavity. The cure rates, complications, and hospital stay were compared between both groups. Results: The study included 50 males and 36 females with mean age 44.2 ± 17.3. The most common predisposing factors were diabetes mellitus and/or stones. Open drainage of perinephric abscesses resulted in a statistically significant higher cure rate (98% versus 69%, p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay than PCD (3.6 versus 6 days, p < 0.001). Failure of complete drainage of multilocular abscess was observed in 8 of 13 cases (61.5%) in group 1 and one of 38 cases (2.6%) in group 2 (P < 0.001). Complications were observed in 7% of group 1 and 11.5% in group 2 (P = 0.45). After mean follow-up of 19 months, 9 of 46 patients (19.6%) had recurrence; 7 of them were in group 1. Conclusion: Percutaneous drainage of perinephric abscess is an effective minimally invasive treatment. However, PCD is not the optimal method for drainage of multilocular abscess because open surgical drainage provided higher cure rates and shorter hospitalization than PCD.
AB - Purpose: To compare the results of percutaneous and open drainage for perinephric abscess. Materials and Methods: The files of 86 patients who underwent drainage for perinephric abscesses from April 2001 through March 2008 were evaluated. The method of drainage for each patient was performed according to the clinical decision of the treating physician. Percutaneous tube drain (PCD) was used for drainage of the abscess in 43 patients (group 1), while the other 43 patients were managed with open drainage (group 2). Cure was defined as complete obliteration of the abscess cavity. The cure rates, complications, and hospital stay were compared between both groups. Results: The study included 50 males and 36 females with mean age 44.2 ± 17.3. The most common predisposing factors were diabetes mellitus and/or stones. Open drainage of perinephric abscesses resulted in a statistically significant higher cure rate (98% versus 69%, p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay than PCD (3.6 versus 6 days, p < 0.001). Failure of complete drainage of multilocular abscess was observed in 8 of 13 cases (61.5%) in group 1 and one of 38 cases (2.6%) in group 2 (P < 0.001). Complications were observed in 7% of group 1 and 11.5% in group 2 (P = 0.45). After mean follow-up of 19 months, 9 of 46 patients (19.6%) had recurrence; 7 of them were in group 1. Conclusion: Percutaneous drainage of perinephric abscess is an effective minimally invasive treatment. However, PCD is not the optimal method for drainage of multilocular abscess because open surgical drainage provided higher cure rates and shorter hospitalization than PCD.
KW - Abscess
KW - Infection
KW - Kidney
KW - Percutaneous
KW - Perinephric
KW - Surgery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953896207&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77953896207&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1590/S1677-55382010000100005
DO - 10.1590/S1677-55382010000100005
M3 - Article
C2 - 20202232
AN - SCOPUS:77953896207
VL - 36
SP - 29
EP - 35
JO - International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
JF - International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
SN - 1677-5538
IS - 1
ER -