Gynecologic and obstetric investigation · 2005
Subcutaneous nephrovesical and nephrocutaneous bypass.
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.
Jurczok A, Loertzer H, Wagner S, Fornara P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effectiveness of the subcutaneous bypass for ureteral obstruction in patients with advanced malignancies. Two versions of the minimally invasive technique were performed: nephrovesical and nephrocutaneous bypass.
METHODS: A specially designed composite implant consisting of an inner smooth silicone-covered tube covered by a coiled e-PTFE-tube was used in 14 patients.
RESULTS: 10 subcutaneous nephrovesical bypasses were inserted in 10 patients, 8 nephrocutaneous bypasses in 4 patients. During the mean follow-up period of 13.1 months complications were observed in 2 patients with nephrocutaneous bypass, one encrustation and one infection of the bypass system.
CONCLUSIONS: The subcutaneous nephrovesical and nephrocutaneous bypass is a safe alternative for palliative treatment of ureteral obstruction caused by pelvic malignancy.
METHODS: A specially designed composite implant consisting of an inner smooth silicone-covered tube covered by a coiled e-PTFE-tube was used in 14 patients.
RESULTS: 10 subcutaneous nephrovesical bypasses were inserted in 10 patients, 8 nephrocutaneous bypasses in 4 patients. During the mean follow-up period of 13.1 months complications were observed in 2 patients with nephrocutaneous bypass, one encrustation and one infection of the bypass system.
CONCLUSIONS: The subcutaneous nephrovesical and nephrocutaneous bypass is a safe alternative for palliative treatment of ureteral obstruction caused by pelvic malignancy.