MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1159/000315056

Медицинская библиотека · Urologia internationalis · 2010

Emphysematous pyelonephritis: tertiary care center experience in management and review of the literature.

Dhabalia Jayesh V, Nelivigi Girish G, Kumar Vikash, Gokhale Aniruddha, Punia Mahendra S, Pujari Nandan

СтатьяОбзорПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

INTRODUCTION

In recent years there have been changes in management modality and a lower mortality with conservative management. We analyzed the result of emphysematous pyelonephritis (EPN) management by a review of the literature.

MATERIAL AND

METHODS

We made a retrospective study for the period from August 2005 to July 2009. Patients were evaluated by CT and subclassified based on CT. The patients managed in different modalities and their outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients were admitted with the diagnosis of EPN. The age range was 22-70 years. Five patients were managed conservatively, 17 patients underwent minimally invasive modalities (double J stent, pigtail drainage). Open drainage of the abscess was conducted in 2 patients, and 4 patients required emergency nephrectomy. Emergency nephrectomy is associated with a high mortality (75%).

CONCLUSIONS

In the majority of cases, EPN was successfully treated by resuscitation and minimally invasive modalities. Percutaneous drainage should be part of the initial management strategy. This strategy is associated with a lower mortality than emergency nephrectomy.

Для цитирования: Dhabalia Jayesh V, Nelivigi Girish G, Kumar Vikash, Gokhale Aniruddha, Punia Mahendra S, Pujari Nandan. Emphysematous pyelonephritis: tertiary care center experience in management and review of the literature.. Urologia internationalis. 2010. DOI: 10.1159/000315056.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.