The Journal of urology · 1997
The role of ureter in the creation of Mitrofanoff channels in children.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mor Y, Kajbafzadeh A M, German K, Mouriquand P D, Duffy P G, Ransley P G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Since 1980 numerous variations of the Mitrofanoff principle have been described. We report on 22 children in whom a ureteral Mitrofanoff channel was created.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1986 and 1995 a ureteral Mitrofanoff channel was constructed as a catheterizable conduit in 22 children 2 to 15 years old (average age 6.5) with various abnormalities of the lower urinary tract, mainly exstrophy and neurogenic bladder. Indications included unavailability or unsuitability of the appendix, preference for appendix as a catheterizable colonic stoma for antegrade washouts or concomitant removal of a nonfunctioning kidney, leaving the ureter available for use. Surgical technique was based on the principles of appendicovesicostomy and in 9 cases the ureteral Mitrofanoff channel was reimplanted.
RESULTS: Followup ranged from 1 to 72 months (average 30.5). Complications included stenosis of the conduit that caused difficult catheterization in 3 patients, necessitating dilation or minor revision in 2 and complete replacement by appendix in 1. Urinary leakage from the Mitrofanoff channel in 5 patients was treated with polydimethylsiloxane injection or oxybutinin. In 1 patient the channel was reimplanted, since the catheter struck the bladder neck during catheterization and caused severe pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Results of the ureteral Mitrofanoff channel seem somewhat less satisfactory than those of appendicovesicostomy but they remain acceptable and even comparable, strongly supporting its use in certain circumstances.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1986 and 1995 a ureteral Mitrofanoff channel was constructed as a catheterizable conduit in 22 children 2 to 15 years old (average age 6.5) with various abnormalities of the lower urinary tract, mainly exstrophy and neurogenic bladder. Indications included unavailability or unsuitability of the appendix, preference for appendix as a catheterizable colonic stoma for antegrade washouts or concomitant removal of a nonfunctioning kidney, leaving the ureter available for use. Surgical technique was based on the principles of appendicovesicostomy and in 9 cases the ureteral Mitrofanoff channel was reimplanted.
RESULTS: Followup ranged from 1 to 72 months (average 30.5). Complications included stenosis of the conduit that caused difficult catheterization in 3 patients, necessitating dilation or minor revision in 2 and complete replacement by appendix in 1. Urinary leakage from the Mitrofanoff channel in 5 patients was treated with polydimethylsiloxane injection or oxybutinin. In 1 patient the channel was reimplanted, since the catheter struck the bladder neck during catheterization and caused severe pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Results of the ureteral Mitrofanoff channel seem somewhat less satisfactory than those of appendicovesicostomy but they remain acceptable and even comparable, strongly supporting its use in certain circumstances.