首页> 外文期刊>Urological Science >Comparison between the use of percutaneous nephrostomy and internal ureteral stenting in the management of long-term ureteral obstructions
【24h】

Comparison between the use of percutaneous nephrostomy and internal ureteral stenting in the management of long-term ureteral obstructions

机译:经皮肾造瘘术与输尿管内支架置入术治疗长期输尿管梗阻的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Objectives: In this study, we compared between the efficacy and complications of percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) tubes and those of internal ureteral stents (e.g., double-J stents) used for relieving ureteral obstructions.Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review was performed. Between 2003 and 2009, 110 patients (63 females and 47 males, with a mean age of 63.6 years, range 19-89 years) who had an extrinsic ureteral obstruction, and subsequently underwent either PCN tube placement (n = 44) or internal ureteral stent placement (n = 66), were enrolled. Clinical data on patients with duration of diversion/drainage for more than 6 months were collected. Statistical analyses were performed with respect to a patient's age, etiology of the obstruction, outcome of residual hydronephrosis, and renal function tests.Results: Patient ages and procedure-related complications were comparable between these two groups. The mean duration of diversion was 16.8 ± 8.6 months in the stent group versus 14.1 ± 6.7 months in the PCN group (p = 0.067). A smaller elevation in serum creatinine was noted in the PCN group (0.21 vs. 0.78 mg/dL, p = 0.03). Nine of 86 (10.4%) double-J stents were converted to PCN tubes during the study period. Residual hydronephrosis after decompression was more common in the stent group than in the PCN group (65.2% vs. 27.2%, p = 0.01). These findings suggest better preservation of renal function by a PCN tube.Conclusions: Results of this study suggest that, to better preserve renal function, PCN is the choice of treatment, irrespective of the etiology. While patients who have a PCN tube may have to carry an additional external drainage device, the complications did not seem to differ significantly from those who used internal drainage with a ureteral stent. Because young cancer patients may especially need aggressive chemotherapy to prolong their survival, PCN urinary drainage may become a better choice from the standpoint of cancer control.
机译:目的:在本研究中,我们比较了经皮肾造瘘术(PCN)导管和用于缓解输尿管阻塞的输尿管内支架(例如双J支架)的疗效和并发症。材料与方法:回顾性分析。在2003年至2009年之间,有110例患者(平均年龄63.6岁,年龄范围19-89岁),分别为63位女性和47位男性,患有输尿管外阻塞,随后接受了PCN管置入(n = 44)或内部输尿管选择支架置入(n = 66)。收集了转移/引流时间超过6个月的患者的临床数据。对患者的年龄,梗阻的病因,残余肾积水的结局和肾功能检查进行了统计分析。结果:两组患者的年龄和与手术相关的并发症相当。支架组的平均转移时间为16.8±8.6个月,而PCN组的平均转移时间为14.1±6.7个月(p = 0.067)。在PCN组中,血清肌酐升高幅度较小(0.21对0.78 mg / dL,p = 0.03)。在研究期间,将86个(10.4%)双J支架中的9个转换为PCN管。支架组减压后残余肾积水比PCN组更常见(65.2%vs. 27.2%,p = 0.01)。这些发现提示PCN管可以更好地保留肾功能。结论:本研究结果表明,要更好地保留肾功能,无论病因如何,PCN都是治疗的选择。虽然拥有PCN管的患者可能必须携带额外的外部引流装置,但并发症似乎与那些使用输尿管支架进行内部引流的患者没有明显的不同。因为年轻的癌症患者可能特别需要积极的化疗来延长其生存期,所以从控制癌症的角度出发,PCN尿液引流可能成为更好的选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号