Ten-Year Sepsis Rates Comparing Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Ureterorenoscopic Laser Lithotripsy in an Australian Population

Abstract

ObjectivesTo compare the rate and predictors of septic complications after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy (FURS) in an Australian population. MethodsHospital admission data were extracted from the Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset (VAED) regarding all elective admissions for SWL and FURS for treatment of intrarenal stones from 2009 to 2018, inclusive. Sepsis was defined by the ICD-10 diagnostic code, A41. ResultsThere were 13 154 inpatient episodes analysed, comprising SWL (6033) and ureterorenoscopic laser lithotripsy (7121). Males made up 67.43% of SWL patients and 63.34% of FURS patients. Median age was 57 years in both groups. Median American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification grade (ASA grade) was 2 for both groups, but proportionally more FURS patients were ASA grade 3 to 4 (P < 0.001). Postoperative sepsis was more common in the FURS group (1.43% vs. 0.03%), as was intensive care unit admission (1.00% vs. 0.10%). Average length of stay was longer for FURS (1.43 days vs. 1.06 days). There were 4 inpatient deaths, all from the FURS group. FURS procedure, female sex, and a higher ASA grade were each independent predictors of sepsis. ConclusionsFURS may have a significantly higher relative risk of postoperative sepsis than SWL in high-risk patients as determined in this study. While overall risk is low, higher comorbidity (ASA grade 3 or 4) and female sex were independent predictors of sepsis. For these patients in particular, and when clinically appropriate, SWL may be considered as a potentially safer alternative to FURS.

Keywords

• swl
• urs
• pyeloscopy
• sepsis
• lithotripsy
• urolithiasis