The residual fragments in patients with preoperative and intraoperative culture positivity may serve as an infection focus. The aim of this study was to assess the importance of residual fragments for developing SIRS in patients with stone culture and/or RPUC positivity. After obtaining institutional review board approval, a total of 729 patients who undergone PCNL for renal stones were included in this study. Residual fragments accepted to be positive if any fragment was detected irrespective of size. All patients were followed-up postoperatively for SIRS criteria. The patients were then followed-up for residual stone-related events and infectious complications. 94 of the 729 patients have developed SIRS postoperatively. SIRS positivity was more common among males and found to be associated with higher stone burden and presence of staghorn stone. Patients with residual fragments after PCNL also had higher rates of SIRS. In the subgroup analysis of 203 patients who had post-PCNL residual fragments, the peroperative stone and/or RPUC positivity was not found to be associated with the development of the SIRS. Although presence of residual fragments after PCNL is associated with SIRS development, stone culture and/or RPUC positivity has no additional risk for development of post-PCNL infectious complications in patients with residual fragments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Author Tansu Degirmenci declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Ibrahim Halil Bozkurt declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Serdar Celik declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Serkan Yarimoglu declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Ismail Basmaci declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Ertugrul Sefik declares that he has no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Fernström I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10:257–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korets R, Graversen JA, Kates M et al (2011) Post-percutaneous nephrolithotomy systemic inflammatory response: a prospective analysis of preoperative urine, renal pelvic urine and stone cultures. J Urol 186: 1899–1903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M et al; CROES PCNL Study Group (2011) The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol 25:11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Keeffe NK, Mortimer AJ, Sambrook PA et al (1993) Severe sepsis following percutaneous or endoscopic procedures for urinary tract stones. Br J Urol 72:277–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mariappan P, Smith G, Bariol SV et al (2005) Stone and pelvic urine culture and sensitivity are better than bladder urine as predictors of urosepsis following percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective clinical study. J Urol 173:1610–1614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdil T, Bostanci Y, Ozden E et al (2013) Risk factors for systemic inflammatory response syndrome following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urolithiasis 41:395–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acar C, Cal C (2012) Impact of residual fragments following endourological treatments in renal stones. Adv Urol 2012:813523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Nahas AR, El-Assmy AM, Madbouly K et al (2006) Predictors of clinical significance of residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones. J Endourol 20:870–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC et al. (2003) 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med 31:1250-1256Google Scholar
Kreydin EL, Eisner BH (2013) Risk factors for sepsis after percutaneous renal stone surgery. Nat Rev Urol 10:598–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charton M, Vallancien G, Veillon B et al (1986) Urinary tract infection in percutaneous surgery for renal calculi. J Urol 135:15–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen L, Xu QQ, Li JX et al (2008) Systemic inflammatory response syndrome after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an assessment of risk factors. Int J Urol 15:1025–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margel D, Ehrlich Y, Brown N et al (2006) Clinical implication of routine stone culture in percutaneous nephrolithotomy—a prospective study. Urology 67:26–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51:899–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vorrakitpokatorn P, Permtongchuchai K, Raksamani EO et al (2006) Perioperative complications and risk factors of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Med Assoc Thai 89:826–833Google Scholar
Armitage JN, Irving SO, Burgess NA (2012) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the United Kingdom: results of a prospective data registry. Eur Urol 61:1188–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dogan HS, Guliyev F, Cetinkaya YS et al (2007) Importance of microbiological evaluation in management of infectious complications following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Int Urol Nephrol 39: 737–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutierrez J, Smith A, Geavlete P, CROES PCNL Study Group et al (2013) Urinary tract infections and post-operative fever in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 31:1135–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draga RO, Kok ET, Sorel MR et al (2009) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: factors associated with fever after the first postoperative day and systemic inflammatory response syndrome. J Endourol 23:921–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar