Urology · 1996
Long-term outcome of prostatic stent treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia.
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.
Chiou R K, Chen W S, Akbari A, Foley S, Lynch B, Taylor R J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term result of prostatic stent treatment for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
METHODS: We reviewed our experience with prostatic stents in 24 patients with bladder outlet obstruction caused by BPH for whom up to 63 months of follow-up data were available.
RESULTS: Prostatic stents were successfully placed in 24 of 25 patients enrolled in the study. All 9 patients treated for urinary retention voided spontaneously after stent placement. In 14 (93%) of 15 patients with nonretention, voiding symptoms decreased by 50% or more. The stent was removed in 9 patients for persistence of symptoms, symptom recurrence, or stent migration. Nine patients died of unrelated causes during the follow-up period. The stents functioned adequately in these patients until death. In the remaining 6 patients, the stent was still in place at the last follow-up visit (range 12 to 52 months, average 35) after placement, and their Madsen-Iversen symptom scores ranged from 3 to 10. Fourteen patients underwent cystoscopy 1 to 37 months after stent placement. Epithelium did not completely cover the stent in any of these patients; however, no stone formation was noted.
CONCLUSIONS: Prostatic stents can be effective in relieving bladder outlet obstruction caused by BPH. They appear to be most useful in patients at high surgical risk and with a limited life expectancy. However, stent removal, which can be difficult, may be required in more than one-third of patients. We recommend prostatic stent placement primarily in patients who would otherwise be relegated to an indwelling catheter.
METHODS: We reviewed our experience with prostatic stents in 24 patients with bladder outlet obstruction caused by BPH for whom up to 63 months of follow-up data were available.
RESULTS: Prostatic stents were successfully placed in 24 of 25 patients enrolled in the study. All 9 patients treated for urinary retention voided spontaneously after stent placement. In 14 (93%) of 15 patients with nonretention, voiding symptoms decreased by 50% or more. The stent was removed in 9 patients for persistence of symptoms, symptom recurrence, or stent migration. Nine patients died of unrelated causes during the follow-up period. The stents functioned adequately in these patients until death. In the remaining 6 patients, the stent was still in place at the last follow-up visit (range 12 to 52 months, average 35) after placement, and their Madsen-Iversen symptom scores ranged from 3 to 10. Fourteen patients underwent cystoscopy 1 to 37 months after stent placement. Epithelium did not completely cover the stent in any of these patients; however, no stone formation was noted.
CONCLUSIONS: Prostatic stents can be effective in relieving bladder outlet obstruction caused by BPH. They appear to be most useful in patients at high surgical risk and with a limited life expectancy. However, stent removal, which can be difficult, may be required in more than one-third of patients. We recommend prostatic stent placement primarily in patients who would otherwise be relegated to an indwelling catheter.