Journal of pediatric urology · 2012
Percutaneous insertion of double-J ureteral stent in children with ureteral obstruction: our experiences.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Ključevšek Damjana, Ključevšek Tomaž
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Ureteral obstruction (UO) is usually treated by surgical or endoscopic approaches. We investigated whether percutaneous anterograde treatment with insertion of double-J ureteral stent (DJ) is a feasible alternative technique for the management of UO in selected cases, where traditional approaches are not possible or too risky.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The DJ was percutaneously inserted into 10 children (mean age 9 years) who suffered from UO. Three children had already been treated surgically for complex urotract congenital anomalies; six children had restenosis/reocclusion or stenosis of ureteropelvic junction; and one girl suffered migration of an intraoperatively placed DJ with stenosis of the distal ureter.
RESULTS: Percutaneous insertion of the DJ was successful on the first attempt in 8 and on the second in 2 children. Adverse events after the procedure, all successfully treated, included one pyelonephritis and one migration of DJ, and 3 children had bacteriuria and 3 hematuria. Mean duration of insertion of the DJ was 6.4 months. After removal of the DJ, 7 children did not need any further interventions, but 2 children needed surgical correction and 1 reinsertion of the DJ.
CONCLUSION: In selected cases, percutanous insertion of a DJ should be considered as an alternative to surgery or endoscopic treatment in the management of children with UO.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The DJ was percutaneously inserted into 10 children (mean age 9 years) who suffered from UO. Three children had already been treated surgically for complex urotract congenital anomalies; six children had restenosis/reocclusion or stenosis of ureteropelvic junction; and one girl suffered migration of an intraoperatively placed DJ with stenosis of the distal ureter.
RESULTS: Percutaneous insertion of the DJ was successful on the first attempt in 8 and on the second in 2 children. Adverse events after the procedure, all successfully treated, included one pyelonephritis and one migration of DJ, and 3 children had bacteriuria and 3 hematuria. Mean duration of insertion of the DJ was 6.4 months. After removal of the DJ, 7 children did not need any further interventions, but 2 children needed surgical correction and 1 reinsertion of the DJ.
CONCLUSION: In selected cases, percutanous insertion of a DJ should be considered as an alternative to surgery or endoscopic treatment in the management of children with UO.