4.6 Article

Factors causing variation in urinary N-nitrosamine levels in enterocystoplasties

期刊

BJU INTERNATIONAL
卷 88, 期 3, 页码 187-191

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.02267.x

关键词

carcinoma; augmentation cystoplasty; intermittent self-catheterization; sterile pyuria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To establish the presence or absence of any diurnal or long-term variation in N-nitrosamine levels (which might be important in the development of cancer in enterocystoplasties) in enterocystoplasty urine, and to assess other factors that might alter enterocystoplasty N-nitrosamine levels. Patients, subjects and methods Thirty-six patients with enterocystoplasties and six normal controls were assessed. Urine samples were collected every 4 h over a 24-h period and N-nitrosamine levels determined using a modification of the Pignatelli method. An additional urine sample was assessed by microscopy, culture and sensitivity. In a subgroup of 16 patients with an enterocystoplasty, the urinary N-nitrosamine levels were re-measured at 3-monthly intervals. Results No diurnal or long-term variation in urinary N-nitrosamine levels was identified. The mean N-nitrosamine levels were significantly higher in the cystoplasty group than in the controls (1.7 vs 1.0 mu mol/L; P=0.008). Mean N-nitrosamine levels were also significantly higher in enterocystoplasty patients with sterile pyuria than in those with no pyuria (P=0.01). Those taking prophylactic antibiotics had significantly lower mean N-nitrosamine levels than those not doing so (P=0.05). Individuals with infected urine and those needing to intermittently catheterize had higher N-nitrosamine levels than their counterparts, but this difference was not significant. Conclusion There were no diurnal or long-term variations in urinary N-nitrosamine levels. Levels were consistently higher in patients with inflamed or infected cystoplasties, those using intermittent self-catheterization and those not taking antibiotic prophylaxis.

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