{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,14]],"date-time":"2026-09-14T20:15:08Z","timestamp":1789416908578,"version":"build-2803163510"},"reference-count":12,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"6","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,14]],"date-time":"2022-10-14T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1665705600000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,14]],"date-time":"2022-10-14T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1665705600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Urolithiasis"],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background<\/jats:title><jats:p>Ureteral obstruction after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) may require prolonged drainage with a nephrostomy tube (NT) or ureteral stent, but it is not well understood how and why this occurs. The goal of this study was to identify risk factors associated with postoperative ureteral obstruction to help guide drainage tube selection.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title><jats:p>Prospective data from adult patients enrolled in the Registry for Stones of the Kidney and Ureter (ReSKU) who underwent PCNL from 2016 to 2020 were used. Patients who had postoperative NTs with antegrade imaging-based flow assessment on postoperative day one (POD1) were included. Patients with transplanted kidneys or those without appropriate preoperative imaging were excluded. We assessed the association between patient demographics, stone characteristics, and intraoperative factors using POD1 antegrade flow, a proxy for ureteral patency, as the primary outcome. Stepwise selection was used to develop a multivariate logistic regression model controlling for BMI, stone location, stone burden, ipsilateral ureteroscopy (URS), access location, estimated blood loss, and operative time.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results<\/jats:title><jats:p>We analyzed 241 cases for this study; 204 (84.6%) had a visual clearance of stone. Antegrade flow on POD1 was absent in 76 cases\u00a0(31.5%). A multivariate logistic regression model found that stones located anywhere other than in the renal pelvis (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.29\u20135.53;<jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\u2009=\u20090.01), non-lower pole access (OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.42\u20135.74;<jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\u2009&lt;\u20090.01), and concurrent ipsilateral URS (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.02\u20134.65;<jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\u2009=\u20090.05) increased the likelihood of obstruction. BMI, pre-operative stone burden, EBL, and operative time did not affect antegrade flow outcomes.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title><jats:p>Concurrent ipsilateral URS, absence of stones in the renal pelvis, and non-lower pole access are associated with increased likelihood of ureteral obstruction after PCNL. Access location appears to be the strongest predictor. Recognizing these risk factors can be helpful in guiding postoperative tube management.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1007\/s00240-022-01365-8","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,14]],"date-time":"2022-10-14T13:03:46Z","timestamp":1665752626000},"page":"759-764","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":5,"title":["Determinants of ureteral obstruction after percutaneous nephrolithotomy"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"50","author":[{"given":"Harry H.","family":"Lee","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-1278-0150","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Heiko","family":"Yang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Patrick","family":"Martin-Tuite","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Rei","family":"Unno","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Fadl","family":"Hamouche","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Justin","family":"Ahn","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"David","family":"Bayne","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Marshall","family":"Stoller","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Thomas","family":"Chi","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,14]]},"reference":[{"issue":"1","key":"1365_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"70","DOI":"10.4103\/0974-7796.162214","volume":"8","author":"JE Abbott","year":"2016","unstructured":"Abbott JE et al (2016) Are we fearful of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Assessing the need for tube drainage following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Ann 8(1):70\u201375","journal-title":"Urol Ann"},{"issue":"5","key":"1365_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"662","DOI":"10.9738\/INTSURG-D-13-00120.1","volume":"99","author":"JY Lee","year":"2014","unstructured":"Lee JY et al (2014) Intraoperative patient selection for tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Int Surg 99(5):662\u2013668","journal-title":"Int Surg"},{"issue":"2","key":"1365_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"267","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2006.0034","volume":"22","author":"TJ Crook","year":"2008","unstructured":"Crook TJ et al (2008) Totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 22(2):267\u2013271","journal-title":"J Endourol"},{"issue":"4","key":"1365_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1590\/1414-431X20154878","volume":"49","author":"N Moosanejad","year":"2016","unstructured":"Moosanejad N et al (2016) Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial. Braz J Med Biol Res 49(4):e4878","journal-title":"Braz J Med Biol Res"},{"issue":"5","key":"1365_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"679","DOI":"10.1097\/MOU.0000000000000802","volume":"30","author":"J Veser","year":"2020","unstructured":"Veser J, Fajkovic H, Seitz C (2020) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: evaluation of minimal invasive exit strategies after percutaneous stone treatment. Curr Opin Urol 30(5):679\u2013683","journal-title":"Curr Opin Urol"},{"issue":"4","key":"1365_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1261","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2010.06.020","volume":"184","author":"DE Zilberman","year":"2010","unstructured":"Zilberman DE et al (2010) Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy\u2014the new standard of care? J Urol 184(4):1261\u20131266","journal-title":"J Urol"},{"issue":"4","key":"1365_CR7","first-page":"223","volume":"1","author":"E Taylor","year":"2012","unstructured":"Taylor E et al (2012) Complications associated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Transl Androl Urol 1(4):223\u2013228","journal-title":"Transl Androl Urol"},{"issue":"1","key":"1365_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"35","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(05)65377-3","volume":"167","author":"JK Parsons","year":"2002","unstructured":"Parsons JK et al (2002) Infundibular stenosis after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 167(1):35\u201338","journal-title":"J Urol"},{"issue":"6","key":"1365_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1077","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(17)47633-6","volume":"134","author":"JW Segura","year":"1985","unstructured":"Segura JW et al (1985) Percutaneous removal of kidney stones: review of 1,000 cases. J Urol 134(6):1077\u20131081","journal-title":"J Urol"},{"issue":"1","key":"1365_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"273","DOI":"10.1148\/radiol.2016160959","volume":"283","author":"T Chi","year":"2017","unstructured":"Chi T et al (2017) Feasibility of antegrade contrast-enhanced US nephrostograms to evaluate ureteral patency. Radiology 283(1):273\u2013279","journal-title":"Radiology"},{"issue":"6","key":"1365_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1367","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2017.07.074","volume":"198","author":"T Chi","year":"2017","unstructured":"Chi T et al (2017) Contrast enhanced ultrasound as a radiation-free alternative to fluoroscopic nephrostogram for evaluating ureteral patency. J Urol 198(6):1367\u20131373","journal-title":"J Urol"},{"issue":"4","key":"1365_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"476","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2015.0594","volume":"30","author":"MD Truesdale","year":"2016","unstructured":"Truesdale MD et al (2016) Methylene blue injection as an alternative to antegrade nephrostography to assess urinary obstruction after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 30(4):476\u2013482","journal-title":"J Endourol"}],"container-title":["Urolithiasis"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00240-022-01365-8.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s00240-022-01365-8\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00240-022-01365-8.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,11,28]],"date-time":"2023-11-28T22:21:25Z","timestamp":1701210085000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s00240-022-01365-8"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,14]]},"references-count":12,"journal-issue":{"issue":"6","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,12]]}},"alternative-id":["1365"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00240-022-01365-8","relation":{},"ISSN":["2194-7236"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2194-7236","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2022,10,14]]},"assertion":[{"value":"30 January 2022","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"30 September 2022","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"14 October 2022","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"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.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethical approval"}},{"value":"Harry Lee declares that he has no conflict of interest. Heiko Yang declares that he has no conflict of interest. Patrick Martin-Tuite declares that he has no conflict of interest. Rei Unno declares that he has no conflict of interest. Fadl Hamouche declares that he has no conflict of interest. Justin Ahn declares that he has no conflict of interest. David Bayne declares that he has no conflict of interest. Marshall Stoller declares that he has no conflict of interest. Thomas Chi declares that he has no conflict of interest.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Conflict of interest"}},{"value":"Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.","order":4,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Informed consent"}}]}}