Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 1995
Combined percutaneous antegrade and cystoscopic retrograde approach in the treatment of distal ureteric fistulae.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
de Baere T, Roche A, Lagrange C, Denys A, Court B, Isapoff J, Pappas P
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of a cystoscopic approach, as definitive treatment of ureteral fistulae, after failure of antegrade ureteral stent insertion.
METHODS: Of 43 ureter fistulae encountered over 4 years, 10 postoperative and/or postradiotherapy fistulae could not be stented via an antegrade approach alone. A cystoscopic approach was used, with the antegrade approach available as back-up, if necessary.
RESULTS: In two patients the ureteral orifice could not be visualized cystoscopically, thus precluding the retrograde approach. In the eight remaining patients, the retrograde approach alone never allowed successful stenting. In six patients, combined antegrade and retrograde approaches permitted stent insertions. In three of those six patients, a complex catheterization procedure was necessary. In two patients the combined approach failed altogether. Therefore, 6 of 10 patients underwent a successful stenting procedure with the combined approach; all ultimately closed the fistula.
CONCLUSION: Antegrade stent insertion remains the treatment of choice for ureteral leaks. If the antegrade approach fails, the retrograde approach alone is not likely to be successful. Instead, a combination of both approaches often does succeed.
METHODS: Of 43 ureter fistulae encountered over 4 years, 10 postoperative and/or postradiotherapy fistulae could not be stented via an antegrade approach alone. A cystoscopic approach was used, with the antegrade approach available as back-up, if necessary.
RESULTS: In two patients the ureteral orifice could not be visualized cystoscopically, thus precluding the retrograde approach. In the eight remaining patients, the retrograde approach alone never allowed successful stenting. In six patients, combined antegrade and retrograde approaches permitted stent insertions. In three of those six patients, a complex catheterization procedure was necessary. In two patients the combined approach failed altogether. Therefore, 6 of 10 patients underwent a successful stenting procedure with the combined approach; all ultimately closed the fistula.
CONCLUSION: Antegrade stent insertion remains the treatment of choice for ureteral leaks. If the antegrade approach fails, the retrograde approach alone is not likely to be successful. Instead, a combination of both approaches often does succeed.