4.4 Article

Comparative study of ureteral stripping versus open ureterectomy for nephroureterectomy in patients with transitional carcinoma of the renal pelvis

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 63, Issue 5, Pages 848-852

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2003.12.003

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. To evaluate the clinical outcome of nephroureterectomy with endoscopically assisted transurethral ureteral stripping for transitional cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis in a comparative study. Methods. Sixty patients with localized renal pelvic cancer were enrolled in a prospective comparative nonrandomized study. Of these, 28 patients underwent nephroureterectomy with endoscopically assisted transurethral ureteral stripping and 32 underwent conventional nephroureterectomy with a bladder cuff. Both short-term and long-term results were analyzed in this series. Results. The operating time for patients with ureteral stripping was significantly shorter than for those with a standard two-incision nephroureterectomy (median 183 versus 250 minutes, P = 0.0231), and the amount of blood loss was significantly less (median 150 versus 390 mL, P = 0.0002). Intravesical recurrence was detected in 10 (35.7%) of the 28 patients with ureteral stripping, and the 1-year and 3-year recurrence-free rate was 68.0% and 57.7%, respectively. Seven patients treated by the standard two-incision nephroureterectomy (21.9%) experienced intravesical recurrence, with a 1-year and 3-year recurrence-free rate of 96.8% and 75.0%, respectively. The recurrence rate was significantly greater in the group with ureteral stripping (P = 0.0287). Conclusions. Compared with conventional nephroureterectomy with a bladder cuff, nephroureterectomy with transurethral stripping is a minimally invasive procedure with a shorter operating time and less blood loss, but a statistically significantly greater intravesical recurrence rate. Greater consideration should be taken before selecting this procedure. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available