4.6 Article

The management of malignant ureteral obstruction treated with ureteral stents

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 174, 期 6, 页码 2125-2128

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000181807.56114.b7

关键词

ureteral obstruction; neoplasms; disease management; stents; nephrostomy; percutaneous

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We developed an algorithm for the management of ureteral obstruction due to malignant extrinsic compression. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all ureteral stents placed for noncalculous reasons at our institution from January 1, 1990 to January 1, 2004. Further clinical information was gathered from 157 patients with malignant extrinsic ureteral compression. Failure was defined as recurrent ureteral obstruction or an inability to place stents cystoscopically. Results: A total of 157 patients underwent retrograde ureteral stent attempt for malignant extrinsic ureteral obstruction. Mean patient age was 54.7 years (range 23 to 83) and average followup was 13.6 months. Of our patients 61% were women, and the most common cancer diagnoses were ovarian cancer (in 26), lymphoma (17) and cervical cancer (16). A total of 24 patients required immediate percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) referral. There were 32 patients who experienced a late failure and required PCN (average 180 days after initial stent), and 83 patients in our series (52.9%) who experienced 110 major complications. Type of cancer did not predict need for PCN. However, when invasion into the bladder was noted on cystoscopy, 55.9% (19 of 34, p = 0.008) progressed to PCN referral. A total of 77 patients underwent stent replacement on average 2.8 times and with an interval of 95 days. Conclusions: In our series patients with malignant extrinsic ureteral compression presenting for ureteral stent(s) experienced a failure rate of 35.7% (56 of 157). Invasion at cystoscopy had a significant predictive value for progression to PCN. We present an algorithm on the management of extrinsic malignant ureteral obstruction.

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