Archivos espanoles de urologia · 2003
[Encrusted pyelitis in patients with urinary diversion].
Клинический случайАннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Martínez Silva Victor Manuel, Villacampa Aubá Felipe, Tejido Sánchez Angel, Martín Muñoz Manuel Pablo, Cruceyra Betriú Guillermo, Rosino Sánchez Antonio, Leiva Galvis Oscar
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This is a case of Encrusted Pyelitis (EP) caused by Corynebacterium urealyticum (CU) in a patient who had undergone a cystectomy and Bricker type urinary diversion 28 months beforehand.
METHODS/RESULTS: After the immediate post-operative period no urinary catheterisation or any other urological procedure was performed on the patient. Before surgery, the patient presented non functional of the right kidney, secondary to a lithiasic obstructive uropathy. Clinical symptoms were deteriorated renal function, anuria, haematuria, pyrexia and left lumbar pain. It was suspected that the patient had this pathology and this was fundamental in diagnosis. Helicoid CT was the principal method used to show calcification plaques on the wall of the left renal pelvis, and selective culture of CU confirmed the diagnosis. Early commencement of treatment with vancomycin at an initial dosage of 500 mg/12 hours, and subsequent adjustment of dosage according to blood drug levels, achieved negative urine culture within a fortnight. Oral acidification was effected using acetohidroxamic acid 125 mg/12 hours, and it was continued until CT confirmed the disappearance or considerable reduction of the pyelic calcification plaques.
CONCLUSION: The presence of EP in patients with urinary diversion is a matter worthy of consideration, even in patients who have not undergone recent urological procedures. Awareness of risk factors and early commencement of effective treatment may improve the prognosis of these patients.
METHODS/RESULTS: After the immediate post-operative period no urinary catheterisation or any other urological procedure was performed on the patient. Before surgery, the patient presented non functional of the right kidney, secondary to a lithiasic obstructive uropathy. Clinical symptoms were deteriorated renal function, anuria, haematuria, pyrexia and left lumbar pain. It was suspected that the patient had this pathology and this was fundamental in diagnosis. Helicoid CT was the principal method used to show calcification plaques on the wall of the left renal pelvis, and selective culture of CU confirmed the diagnosis. Early commencement of treatment with vancomycin at an initial dosage of 500 mg/12 hours, and subsequent adjustment of dosage according to blood drug levels, achieved negative urine culture within a fortnight. Oral acidification was effected using acetohidroxamic acid 125 mg/12 hours, and it was continued until CT confirmed the disappearance or considerable reduction of the pyelic calcification plaques.
CONCLUSION: The presence of EP in patients with urinary diversion is a matter worthy of consideration, even in patients who have not undergone recent urological procedures. Awareness of risk factors and early commencement of effective treatment may improve the prognosis of these patients.