4.4 Article

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

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 63, 期 5, 页码 848-852

出版社

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

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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