Main Article Content
Objectives: The recent drop in the mortality rates of emphysematous pyelonephritis, a serious medical condition, is attributable to renal percutaneous drainage (PCD) techniques that have also reduced the necessity for surgery. Since the difference in the objectives of the two specific techniques, i.e. PCD and percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN), is often overlooked, this study aimed to highlight the inconsistencies in the use of these two techniques. Methods: A retrospective study of 17 patients was conducted over a 10-year period from January 2008 to December 2017 at The Royal Hospital, Muscat, Oman. All patients had undergone abdominal computerised tomography. The obtained images were reviewed and categorised based on Huang and Tseng’s classification. Results: From the sample, 13 patients (76%) were categorised as class I and II, three (17%) as class IIIA and one (6%) as class IIIB. Five patients from the class I and II categories underwent drainage of the pelvicalyceal system, four by PCN and one by a double-J stent insertion. PCN was performed on all the class IIIA and IIIB patients. One class IIIB patient required PCD for localised gas and fluid collection but later underwent emergency nephrectomy. There were no mortalities. Conclusion: The favourable outcome of this study was in keeping with those of the more recent studies. However, despite the present classifications and guidelines, wide variations were reported in the use of percutaneous drains with PCD, ranging from 2.5–91%. The lack of precise guidelines may be a cause of these disparities in clinical management.
Keywords: Renal Infection; Pyelonephritis; Drainage; Percutaneous Nephrostomy; Oman.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.