4.6 Article

Bladder necrosis following hydrodistention in patients with interstitial cystitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 177, 期 1, 页码 149-152

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.095

关键词

bladder; cystitis; interstitial; necrosis; complications

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Bladder hydrodistention is used to diagnose and treat patients with interstitial cystitis. This procedure has been shown to have minimal morbidity and provide symptomatic relief in a subset of patients with interstitial cystitis. We report our experience with almost total bladder necrosis after hydrodistention at 2 institutions. To our knowledge this rare complication has not been previously reported in the literature. We also reviewed the literature regarding complications of hydrodistention and discuss their possible etiology. Materials and Methods: We report 3 cases of bladder necrosis after therapeutic hydrodistention for interstitial cystitis at 2 institutions. All records were reviewed, and the clinical presentation, findings and treatments are discussed. A literature review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness and complications of hydrodistention for interstitial cystitis. Results: There were 2 female and 1 male patient between ages 29 and 46. All patients had a previous diagnosis of interstitial cystitis and had been previously treated with hydrodistention. All patients presented with severe abdominal pain and had necrosis of the entire bladder wall with sparing of the trigone. Two patients were treated with supratrigonal cystectomy. A review of the literature revealed little data on the effectiveness of hydrodistention for interstitial cystitis. Conclusions: Vesical necrosis is a rare but devastating complication of hydrodistention. It can occur in young patients in the absence of a contracted bladder and it usually presents as severe postoperative abdominal pain. At exploration bladder necrosis with sparing of the trigone was observed. All patients required enterocystoplasty.

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