4.4 Article

Retrograde ureteral stents for extrinsic ureteral obstruction: Nine years' experience at University of Michigan

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 70, 期 5, 页码 846-850

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.07.008

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES To review our experience with retrograde ureteral stenting for extrinsic ureteral obstruction because previous reports have suggested only moderate success. METHODS We performed a retrospective review of the course of patients who underwent retrograde ureteral stent placement from March 1996 to April 2005. The gathered clinical parameters included stent failure, which was defined as any ureteral unit (UU) that remained obstructed. RESULTS A total of 54 patients treated for extrinsic ureteral compression, representing 87 UUs, were followed for an average of 16 months (range 0.7 to 98) in successful cases. Of the stents, 68% were placed for malignancy, 23% for retroperitoneal fibrosis, and 9% for benign masses. The overall success rate was 84%, with malignancy, retroperitoneal fibrosis, and benign masses having an 81%, an 85%, and a 100% success rate, respectively. Fourteen UUs failed, with a mean time to stent failure of 4.8 months (range 0.07 to 27). Multiple stents were placed in 54 UUs, with a mean of 5.5 stent exchanges, at a mean interval of 3.6 months. On univariate analysis, only greater posttreatment creatinine was associated with stent failure (P <0.01), although stents placed for localized disease tended to be more successful than those placed for regional disease (100% versus 81%, P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS If initial stent placement was possible, extrinsic ureteral obstruction was managed successfully with retrograde ureteral stent placement in 84% of cases. Because no preoperative characteristics could be identified, except for a trend toward less success in cases of regional disease, retrograde stenting can be considered first-tine treatment in patients with extrinsic ureteral obstruction. UROLOGY 70: 846-850, 2007. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc.

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

4.4
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