4.6 Article

Long-Term Risk of End Stage Renal Disease in Patients With Posterior Urethral Valves

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 186, 期 6, 页码 2392-2396

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.109

关键词

uremia; vesico-ureteral reflux

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Congenital obstructive uropathy can lead to end stage renal disease. Progression to end stage renal disease in childhood is well described but long-term prognosis in adulthood has not been thoroughly investigated. In this study we evaluated the risk of end stage renal disease in patients with posterior urethral valves. Materials and Methods: During 1953 to 2003 a total of 200 male patients were treated for posterior urethral valves at our institution and of these 193 could be followed for renal outcome. Followup data on patients treated with dialysis or kidney transplantation were collected from patient records and the Finnish Kidney Transplantation Registry, and data on deceased patients were collected from hospital records and the Finnish Population Register Centre. Results: Median patient age at evaluation was 31 years (range 6 to 69). Of the 193 patients followed 44 (22.8%) had progression to end stage renal disease. According to a Kaplan-Meier analysis the lifetime risk of end stage renal disease was 28.5% (SE 3.8%). No patient had end stage renal disease after the age of 34 years. The lowest serum creatinine value during postoperative year 1 was associated with speed of progression to end stage renal disease. Early presentation, pneumothorax, bilateral vesicoureteral reflux and recurrent urinary tract infections after the abolition of urethral obstruction were associated with an increased risk of end stage renal disease at followup. Conclusions: Congenital obstructive uropathy can lead to end stage renal disease during childhood or young adulthood. However, the risk of end stage renal disease seems to decrease eventually. Poor kidney function at presentation is associated with worse renal prognosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据