Urologiia (Moscow, Russia : 1999) · 2020
[Retroperitoneoscopic approach for treatment of acute obstructive calculous pyelonephritis. Alternative or a method of choice?].
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.
Lebedeva A A, Neymark A I, Ilyinskaya E V
Аннотация
AIM: to compare the results of treatment of patients with acute obstructive calculous pyelonephritis, who underwent to retroperitoneoscopic procedure, with patients, who underwent to drainage of the collecting system by means of ureteral stent or nephrostomy tube as the first stage.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 121 patients were treated from 2011 to 2019. Of these, 78 patients were included in the main group. The stones were located in the ureteropelvic junction (n = 20) and the upper and middle ureter (n = 58). The average size of the stone was 12.9 +/- 4.8 mm. Preliminary upper urinary tract drainage was not carried out and the stone was removed completely. The group 2 consisted of 26 people. The stones were located in the upper (n = 18) and the middle ureter (n = 8); the average size was 9 +/- 2.8 mm. Renal drainage was done using ureteral stent and when pyelonephritis resolved, ureterolithotripsy was performed. The group 3 was represented by 17 patients. All stones were located in the ureteropelvic junction. The average size was 20.3 +/- 10.7 mm. Renal drainage was done using percutaneous nephrostomy; when there were no inflammatory changes, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy was performed.
RESULTS: In the main group, normalization of body temperature and resolution of inflammatory changes in the blood and urine occurred earlier. The stone was removed completely and there were no residual fragments. Period of rehabilitation was are also significantly shorter than in groups 2 and 3. The retroperitoneoscopic method was more effective and safer for the treatment of patients with acute obstructive pyelonephritis caused by large stones located in the upper or middle ureter and ureteropelvic junction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 121 patients were treated from 2011 to 2019. Of these, 78 patients were included in the main group. The stones were located in the ureteropelvic junction (n = 20) and the upper and middle ureter (n = 58). The average size of the stone was 12.9 +/- 4.8 mm. Preliminary upper urinary tract drainage was not carried out and the stone was removed completely. The group 2 consisted of 26 people. The stones were located in the upper (n = 18) and the middle ureter (n = 8); the average size was 9 +/- 2.8 mm. Renal drainage was done using ureteral stent and when pyelonephritis resolved, ureterolithotripsy was performed. The group 3 was represented by 17 patients. All stones were located in the ureteropelvic junction. The average size was 20.3 +/- 10.7 mm. Renal drainage was done using percutaneous nephrostomy; when there were no inflammatory changes, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy was performed.
RESULTS: In the main group, normalization of body temperature and resolution of inflammatory changes in the blood and urine occurred earlier. The stone was removed completely and there were no residual fragments. Period of rehabilitation was are also significantly shorter than in groups 2 and 3. The retroperitoneoscopic method was more effective and safer for the treatment of patients with acute obstructive pyelonephritis caused by large stones located in the upper or middle ureter and ureteropelvic junction.