Acute Ureteric / Renal Colic - A UK Snapshot June 2015-2016
Author(s):
Dr Teresa Marsden
,
Dr Teresa Marsden
Affiliations:
Mr Ben Turney
,
Mr Ben Turney
Affiliations:
Mr Nitin Shotri
,
Mr Nitin Shotri
Affiliations:
Mr Matthew Bultitude
,
Mr Matthew Bultitude
Affiliations:
Mr Alistair Rogers
,
Mr Alistair Rogers
Affiliations:
Mr Steve Gordon
,
Mr Steve Gordon
Affiliations:
Mr Francis Keeley
,
Mr Francis Keeley
Affiliations:
Mr Oliver Wiseman
,
Mr Oliver Wiseman
Affiliations:
Mr Daron Smith
Mr Daron Smith
Affiliations:
BAUS ePoster online library. Marsden T. 06/26/17; 177359; P3-3
Teresa Marsden
Teresa Marsden
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.

You may also access this content "anytime, anywhere" with the Free MULTILEARNING App for iOS and Android
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Rate & Comment (0)
Introduction / Aim and Objective
To provide a “snapshot” of practice for patients requiring emergency CTKUB and summarise stone-related outcomes over one year following their presentation.
Patients and Methods
Patients were identified by radiology records as undergoing emergency CTKUB in eight specialist stone units in June 2015. 363 patients had confirmed urolithiasis from the 732 patients analysed (49.6%).
Results
Patients with stones were significantly more likely to be male, have hydronephrosis, previous stone history (all p=0.001) and non-visible haematuria (p=0.02) than non-stone patients. 158 stones were distal ureteric (43.5%) and 61 were proximal ureteric (16.8%).
A summary of intervention / stone sizes, and outcomes for stone, tube and readmission status during follow-up are shown in tables 1 and 2. Nearly 80% of patients were initially managed conservatively, 40% were recorded to have had MET, 14% required in-patient intervention (emergency drainage accounting for 10.7%) and 1.4% had acute URS to achieve stone clearance
Discussion / Conclusion
A stone detection rate of approximately 50% is typical across the literature for patients with symptoms suggestive of acute ureteric colic. This study has shown that patients with increasing stone size have greater likelihood of retaining tubing at 6 weeks, six months and one year. More than 10% of patients were readmitted at 6 weeks and six months (again with increased risk with larger stones). These data should help inform the baseline standards for “what good looks like” for the current management of patients who present as an emergency with urolithiasis in the UK.
Introduction / Aim and Objective
To provide a “snapshot” of practice for patients requiring emergency CTKUB and summarise stone-related outcomes over one year following their presentation.
Patients and Methods
Patients were identified by radiology records as undergoing emergency CTKUB in eight specialist stone units in June 2015. 363 patients had confirmed urolithiasis from the 732 patients analysed (49.6%).
Results
Patients with stones were significantly more likely to be male, have hydronephrosis, previous stone history (all p=0.001) and non-visible haematuria (p=0.02) than non-stone patients. 158 stones were distal ureteric (43.5%) and 61 were proximal ureteric (16.8%).
A summary of intervention / stone sizes, and outcomes for stone, tube and readmission status during follow-up are shown in tables 1 and 2. Nearly 80% of patients were initially managed conservatively, 40% were recorded to have had MET, 14% required in-patient intervention (emergency drainage accounting for 10.7%) and 1.4% had acute URS to achieve stone clearance
Discussion / Conclusion
A stone detection rate of approximately 50% is typical across the literature for patients with symptoms suggestive of acute ureteric colic. This study has shown that patients with increasing stone size have greater likelihood of retaining tubing at 6 weeks, six months and one year. More than 10% of patients were readmitted at 6 weeks and six months (again with increased risk with larger stones). These data should help inform the baseline standards for “what good looks like” for the current management of patients who present as an emergency with urolithiasis in the UK.
Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions

By clicking “Accept Terms & all Cookies” or by continuing to browse, you agree to the storing of third-party cookies on your device to enhance your user experience and agree to the user terms and conditions of this learning management system (LMS).

Cookie Settings
Accept Terms & all Cookies