4.5 Article

Acid-base disorders after orthotopic bladder replacement: comparison of an ileal neobladder and an ileal conduit

期刊

RENAL FAILURE
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 379-384

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0886022X.2017.1287733

关键词

Conduit; ileum; metabolic acidosis; neobladder; renal function

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: For many years, creation of an orthotopic neobladder after cystectomy has been popular. In the present study, we measured the extent of metabolic acidosis in patients with ileal neobladders compared with ileal conduits and defined risk factors for development of metabolic acidosis. Methods: We retrospectively studied 95 patients, who underwent radical cystectomy and urinary diversion to treat invasive bladder cancer from January 2001 to December 2014 at Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, through investigation of acid-base balance, serum electrolyte levels and renal function one month and one year after operation. Results: One month after the operation, metabolic acidosis was found from 18 patients (31.0%) in an ileal neobladder group and from 4 (14.8%) in an ileal conduits group. One year after the operation, the numbers became 11 (22.9%) and 2 (10.0%), respectively. However, there was not a statistical difference. The blood biochemical profiles of the two groups did not differ significantly after urinary diversion. Logistic analysis revealed that lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was associated with metabolic acidosis at one month (odds ratio, OR = 0.94 [0.91-0.97]; p < 0.001) and one year (OR = 0.94 [0.92-0.97]; P = 0.001) after urinary diversion. In multivariate analysis, lower eGFR is a significant risk factor for metabolic acidosis at one month. Conclusions: Patients with ileal neobladders and conduits are at the similar risk of metabolic acidosis. A close association between renal function and development of metabolic acidosis was observed, especially stronger in an early period after operation.

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

4.5
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