British journal of urology · 1995
Palliation of obstructive nephropathy due to malignancy.
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.
Harrington K J, Pandha H S, Kelly S A, Lambert H E, Jackson J E, Waxman J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a prospective study of patients with malignant obstructive uropathy treated actively by percutaneous nephrostomy and J-J ureteric stents.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients (27 men, 15 women, median age 62 years, range 29-83) with obstructive nephropathy secondary to malignancy underwent urinary diversion followed, where appropriate, by active treatment of the underlying cancer.
RESULTS: The median survival of all patients was 133 (range 7-712) days. Seventeen patients (40%) survived for > 6 months and five (12%) for < 1 month. Patients who had received no prior therapy and for whom further therapeutic options were available were more likely to benefit from urinary diversion. In nine patients (21%) nephrostomy insertion failed to relieve renal failure. In 20 patients (48%) obstructive nephropathy recurred. The procedure was complicated by urinary tract or nephrostomy site infection in 16 patients, by septicaemia in six patients, by percutaneous urine leak in 13 patients and by pelvi-calyceal perforation in two patients, but not by haemorrhage or death. The median percentage of the patients' remaining life which was spent in hospital was 23.6% (range 2.2-100).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients likely to benefit from nephrostomy were those for whom there were therapeutic options available for the treatment of their malignancy. Prolonged survival is possible in obstructive nephropathy secondary to malignancy, which should no longer be cited as an absolute contra-indication to urinary diversion. Patients unlikely to benefit from urinary diversion can also be identified and they should not routinely undergo this intervention.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients (27 men, 15 women, median age 62 years, range 29-83) with obstructive nephropathy secondary to malignancy underwent urinary diversion followed, where appropriate, by active treatment of the underlying cancer.
RESULTS: The median survival of all patients was 133 (range 7-712) days. Seventeen patients (40%) survived for > 6 months and five (12%) for < 1 month. Patients who had received no prior therapy and for whom further therapeutic options were available were more likely to benefit from urinary diversion. In nine patients (21%) nephrostomy insertion failed to relieve renal failure. In 20 patients (48%) obstructive nephropathy recurred. The procedure was complicated by urinary tract or nephrostomy site infection in 16 patients, by septicaemia in six patients, by percutaneous urine leak in 13 patients and by pelvi-calyceal perforation in two patients, but not by haemorrhage or death. The median percentage of the patients' remaining life which was spent in hospital was 23.6% (range 2.2-100).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients likely to benefit from nephrostomy were those for whom there were therapeutic options available for the treatment of their malignancy. Prolonged survival is possible in obstructive nephropathy secondary to malignancy, which should no longer be cited as an absolute contra-indication to urinary diversion. Patients unlikely to benefit from urinary diversion can also be identified and they should not routinely undergo this intervention.