La Tunisie medicale · 2007
Recurrent obstructions after resonance stent placement in the treatment of ureteral compression from malignant disease.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Feki Wassim, Ghozzi Samir, Damak Tarak, Dridi Mohamed, Khiari Ramzi, Rahal Khaled, Ben Rais Nawfel
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Resonance ureteral stent is a newly developed all-metallic double-pigtail ureteral stent allowing a palliative diversion on a patient with malignant ureteral obstruction.
AIM: To define selection criteria of good candidates for Resonance stent.
CASE: A 62-year-old woman was admitted to the emergency department with complaining of severe right flank pain and anuria. Twelve days earlier, we had placed retrogradely a ureteral metallic Resonance stent (Resonance; Cook Ireland Ltd,Limerick, Ireland) for the treatment of a ureteral compression from pelvic recurrence of an appendical colloid mucosal carcinoma in a solitary functioning right kidney. A percutaneous nephrostomy catheter was placed, and an antegrade nephrostogram demonstrated complete distal ureter obstruction. The patency of the ureteral stent was restored spontaneously and then, nephrostomy catheter was removed. Two weeks later, she presented with obstructed ureteral stent. Percutaneous nephrostomy was performed and Resonance stent was removed definitively. Ureteroscopy with biopsy confirmed the tumour extension into the ureteral lumen.
CONCLUSION: The risk of subsequent obstruction after Resonance metallic ureteral stent placement is real. Patients with intra-ureteral tumour extension are presumably not good candidates for Resonance stent management.
AIM: To define selection criteria of good candidates for Resonance stent.
CASE: A 62-year-old woman was admitted to the emergency department with complaining of severe right flank pain and anuria. Twelve days earlier, we had placed retrogradely a ureteral metallic Resonance stent (Resonance; Cook Ireland Ltd,Limerick, Ireland) for the treatment of a ureteral compression from pelvic recurrence of an appendical colloid mucosal carcinoma in a solitary functioning right kidney. A percutaneous nephrostomy catheter was placed, and an antegrade nephrostogram demonstrated complete distal ureter obstruction. The patency of the ureteral stent was restored spontaneously and then, nephrostomy catheter was removed. Two weeks later, she presented with obstructed ureteral stent. Percutaneous nephrostomy was performed and Resonance stent was removed definitively. Ureteroscopy with biopsy confirmed the tumour extension into the ureteral lumen.
CONCLUSION: The risk of subsequent obstruction after Resonance metallic ureteral stent placement is real. Patients with intra-ureteral tumour extension are presumably not good candidates for Resonance stent management.