ArticleInternational medical case reports journal2026
A Rare Case of Laparoscopic Removal of a Giant Renal Pelvic Pus Clot Caused by Citrobacter Freundii Infection.
Article in International medical case reports journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is extremely rare for renal pelvic pus clot with a diameter of 3 cm that formed by purulent secretions due to bacterial infection. A 37-year-old female patient developed a giant renal pelvic pus clot with a diameter of 3 cm 5 months after percutaneous nephrolithotomy, caused by Citrobacter freundii infection, resulting in lower back pain and fever. Due to the lack of specialized tissue pulverizers for percutaneous nephrolithotomy, laparoscopic pyelotomy via intraperitoneal approach removed the giant renal pelvis pus clot. However, it was found that some small pus clots had formed around the ureteral stent in the third month after surgery. A second surgery was performed using ureteroscopy to remove these small pus clots, and the ureteral stent was only placed for 3 days. Although there was no recurrence of renal pelvic pus clot during follow-up, multiple positive urine cultures suggest that bacteria may have colonized the renal pelvis. After taking oral antibiotics for a month, this complex urinary tract infection was finally cured. When conventional urological endoscopic techniques are not as effective or when critical equipment is lacking, laparoscopic surgery remains a good alternative option. Setting the upper limit of laparoscopic pneumoperitoneum pressure to 11 mm Hg can prevent the spread of infection. This case emphasizes that in the absence of specialized tissue pulverizer for percutaneous nephrolithotomy, transperitoneal laparoscopy to incise the renal pelvis to remove a giant renal pelvic pus clot is safe and will not cause intra-abdominal infection. This case also suggests that ureteral stents should not be left in place for an extended period to prevent the pus clot recurrence, especially in cases where urine culture results are positive. We recommend keeping the ureteral stent for less than 2 weeks. In addition, longer-term anti-infective treatment is required until the urine culture turns negative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.