The Management of Ureteric Obstruction Secondary to Malignant Pelvic Disease

AIM: Management of upper-tract obstruction secondary to a malignant pelvic process is a difficult problem and is best dealt with by a multi-disciplinary team. In the present audit, we address the question: is staged antegrade stenting better than retrograde ureteric stenting? MATERIALS AND METHODS:...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical radiology 2002-12, Vol.57 (12), p.1118-1121
Hauptverfasser: Chitale, S.V, Scott-Barrett, S, Ho, E.T.S, Burgess, N.A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1121
container_issue 12
container_start_page 1118
container_title Clinical radiology
container_volume 57
creator Chitale, S.V
Scott-Barrett, S
Ho, E.T.S
Burgess, N.A
description AIM: Management of upper-tract obstruction secondary to a malignant pelvic process is a difficult problem and is best dealt with by a multi-disciplinary team. In the present audit, we address the question: is staged antegrade stenting better than retrograde ureteric stenting? MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our present management of upper-tract obstruction secondary to malignant pelvic disease in 65 patients treated over a period of 2 years. Fifty-eight patients had urological cancer and seven patients had non-urological cancers; 70% of all cases had renal impairment. Twenty-four of 65 patients had an attempt at endoscopic retrograde ureteric stenting as a primary method of decompression while percutaneous nephrostomy followed by antegrade ureteric stenting was performed in 41/65 patients. RESULTS: Endoscopic retrograde stenting had a success rate of 21% whereas two-stage antegrade stenting was successful in 98% of patients. The antegrade approach had minimal morbidity. CONCLUSION: Obstruction of the pelvic ureter secondary to any pelvic malignancy is best managed by two-stage antegrade ureteric stenting. This approach has a high success rate with minimal morbidity, and should be preferred to an endoscopic approach. This highlights the important role of an interventional uroradiologist in the management of these patients. Chitale, S. V. et al. (2002). Clinical Radiology57, 1118–1121.
doi_str_mv 10.1053/crad.2002.1114
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72762755</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0009926002911141</els_id><sourcerecordid>72762755</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-c70daf667f5711f1affa5992da82d76e5a244dfbaf4899cfb5fa41f0b8a98a653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1LwzAYxoMobk6vHqUnb61JmvTjKH7DZIIbeAtvkzcz0rUzaQf-97Zs4MnTywu_54HnR8glowmjMr3RHkzCKeUJY0wckSlLMxlzXn4ckymltIxLntEJOQvha3wFF6dkwrjIpUyLKZkvPzF6hQbWuMGmi1obrTx26J2OFlXofK871zbRO-q2MeB_oq4d-NqtGxjwN6x3A3nvAkLAc3JioQ54cbgzsnp8WN49x_PF08vd7TzWqaBdrHNqwGZZbmXOmGVgLciy5AYKbvIMJXAhjK3AiqIsta2kBcEsrQooC8hkOiPX-96tb797DJ3auKCxrqHBtg8q53nGx4EzkuxB7dsQPFq19W4zrFCMqtGfGv2p0Z8a_Q2Bq0NzX23Q_OEHYQNQ7AEc9u0cehW0w0ajcR51p0zr_uv-BeV1f64</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72762755</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Management of Ureteric Obstruction Secondary to Malignant Pelvic Disease</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Chitale, S.V ; Scott-Barrett, S ; Ho, E.T.S ; Burgess, N.A</creator><creatorcontrib>Chitale, S.V ; Scott-Barrett, S ; Ho, E.T.S ; Burgess, N.A</creatorcontrib><description>AIM: Management of upper-tract obstruction secondary to a malignant pelvic process is a difficult problem and is best dealt with by a multi-disciplinary team. In the present audit, we address the question: is staged antegrade stenting better than retrograde ureteric stenting? MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our present management of upper-tract obstruction secondary to malignant pelvic disease in 65 patients treated over a period of 2 years. Fifty-eight patients had urological cancer and seven patients had non-urological cancers; 70% of all cases had renal impairment. Twenty-four of 65 patients had an attempt at endoscopic retrograde ureteric stenting as a primary method of decompression while percutaneous nephrostomy followed by antegrade ureteric stenting was performed in 41/65 patients. RESULTS: Endoscopic retrograde stenting had a success rate of 21% whereas two-stage antegrade stenting was successful in 98% of patients. The antegrade approach had minimal morbidity. CONCLUSION: Obstruction of the pelvic ureter secondary to any pelvic malignancy is best managed by two-stage antegrade ureteric stenting. This approach has a high success rate with minimal morbidity, and should be preferred to an endoscopic approach. This highlights the important role of an interventional uroradiologist in the management of these patients. Chitale, S. V. et al. (2002). Clinical Radiology57, 1118–1121.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-9260</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-229X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1053/crad.2002.1114</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12475538</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Nephrostomy, Percutaneous - methods ; Pelvic Neoplasms - complications ; pelvic ureter, ureteric stenting, nephrostomy, renal failure, hydronephrosis, uroradiologist ; Rectal Neoplasms - complications ; Stents ; Treatment Outcome ; Ureteral Obstruction - etiology ; Ureteral Obstruction - surgery ; Urogenital Neoplasms - complications</subject><ispartof>Clinical radiology, 2002-12, Vol.57 (12), p.1118-1121</ispartof><rights>2002 The Royal College of Radiologists</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-c70daf667f5711f1affa5992da82d76e5a244dfbaf4899cfb5fa41f0b8a98a653</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-c70daf667f5711f1affa5992da82d76e5a244dfbaf4899cfb5fa41f0b8a98a653</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009926002911141$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65534</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12475538$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chitale, S.V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott-Barrett, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ho, E.T.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burgess, N.A</creatorcontrib><title>The Management of Ureteric Obstruction Secondary to Malignant Pelvic Disease</title><title>Clinical radiology</title><addtitle>Clin Radiol</addtitle><description>AIM: Management of upper-tract obstruction secondary to a malignant pelvic process is a difficult problem and is best dealt with by a multi-disciplinary team. In the present audit, we address the question: is staged antegrade stenting better than retrograde ureteric stenting? MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our present management of upper-tract obstruction secondary to malignant pelvic disease in 65 patients treated over a period of 2 years. Fifty-eight patients had urological cancer and seven patients had non-urological cancers; 70% of all cases had renal impairment. Twenty-four of 65 patients had an attempt at endoscopic retrograde ureteric stenting as a primary method of decompression while percutaneous nephrostomy followed by antegrade ureteric stenting was performed in 41/65 patients. RESULTS: Endoscopic retrograde stenting had a success rate of 21% whereas two-stage antegrade stenting was successful in 98% of patients. The antegrade approach had minimal morbidity. CONCLUSION: Obstruction of the pelvic ureter secondary to any pelvic malignancy is best managed by two-stage antegrade ureteric stenting. This approach has a high success rate with minimal morbidity, and should be preferred to an endoscopic approach. This highlights the important role of an interventional uroradiologist in the management of these patients. Chitale, S. V. et al. (2002). Clinical Radiology57, 1118–1121.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nephrostomy, Percutaneous - methods</subject><subject>Pelvic Neoplasms - complications</subject><subject>pelvic ureter, ureteric stenting, nephrostomy, renal failure, hydronephrosis, uroradiologist</subject><subject>Rectal Neoplasms - complications</subject><subject>Stents</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Ureteral Obstruction - etiology</subject><subject>Ureteral Obstruction - surgery</subject><subject>Urogenital Neoplasms - complications</subject><issn>0009-9260</issn><issn>1365-229X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM1LwzAYxoMobk6vHqUnb61JmvTjKH7DZIIbeAtvkzcz0rUzaQf-97Zs4MnTywu_54HnR8glowmjMr3RHkzCKeUJY0wckSlLMxlzXn4ckymltIxLntEJOQvha3wFF6dkwrjIpUyLKZkvPzF6hQbWuMGmi1obrTx26J2OFlXofK871zbRO-q2MeB_oq4d-NqtGxjwN6x3A3nvAkLAc3JioQ54cbgzsnp8WN49x_PF08vd7TzWqaBdrHNqwGZZbmXOmGVgLciy5AYKbvIMJXAhjK3AiqIsta2kBcEsrQooC8hkOiPX-96tb797DJ3auKCxrqHBtg8q53nGx4EzkuxB7dsQPFq19W4zrFCMqtGfGv2p0Z8a_Q2Bq0NzX23Q_OEHYQNQ7AEc9u0cehW0w0ajcR51p0zr_uv-BeV1f64</recordid><startdate>200212</startdate><enddate>200212</enddate><creator>Chitale, S.V</creator><creator>Scott-Barrett, S</creator><creator>Ho, E.T.S</creator><creator>Burgess, N.A</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200212</creationdate><title>The Management of Ureteric Obstruction Secondary to Malignant Pelvic Disease</title><author>Chitale, S.V ; Scott-Barrett, S ; Ho, E.T.S ; Burgess, N.A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-c70daf667f5711f1affa5992da82d76e5a244dfbaf4899cfb5fa41f0b8a98a653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nephrostomy, Percutaneous - methods</topic><topic>Pelvic Neoplasms - complications</topic><topic>pelvic ureter, ureteric stenting, nephrostomy, renal failure, hydronephrosis, uroradiologist</topic><topic>Rectal Neoplasms - complications</topic><topic>Stents</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Ureteral Obstruction - etiology</topic><topic>Ureteral Obstruction - surgery</topic><topic>Urogenital Neoplasms - complications</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chitale, S.V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott-Barrett, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ho, E.T.S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burgess, N.A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chitale, S.V</au><au>Scott-Barrett, S</au><au>Ho, E.T.S</au><au>Burgess, N.A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Management of Ureteric Obstruction Secondary to Malignant Pelvic Disease</atitle><jtitle>Clinical radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Radiol</addtitle><date>2002-12</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>57</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1118</spage><epage>1121</epage><pages>1118-1121</pages><issn>0009-9260</issn><eissn>1365-229X</eissn><abstract>AIM: Management of upper-tract obstruction secondary to a malignant pelvic process is a difficult problem and is best dealt with by a multi-disciplinary team. In the present audit, we address the question: is staged antegrade stenting better than retrograde ureteric stenting? MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our present management of upper-tract obstruction secondary to malignant pelvic disease in 65 patients treated over a period of 2 years. Fifty-eight patients had urological cancer and seven patients had non-urological cancers; 70% of all cases had renal impairment. Twenty-four of 65 patients had an attempt at endoscopic retrograde ureteric stenting as a primary method of decompression while percutaneous nephrostomy followed by antegrade ureteric stenting was performed in 41/65 patients. RESULTS: Endoscopic retrograde stenting had a success rate of 21% whereas two-stage antegrade stenting was successful in 98% of patients. The antegrade approach had minimal morbidity. CONCLUSION: Obstruction of the pelvic ureter secondary to any pelvic malignancy is best managed by two-stage antegrade ureteric stenting. This approach has a high success rate with minimal morbidity, and should be preferred to an endoscopic approach. This highlights the important role of an interventional uroradiologist in the management of these patients. Chitale, S. V. et al. (2002). Clinical Radiology57, 1118–1121.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>12475538</pmid><doi>10.1053/crad.2002.1114</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0009-9260
ispartof Clinical radiology, 2002-12, Vol.57 (12), p.1118-1121
issn 0009-9260
1365-229X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72762755
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Nephrostomy, Percutaneous - methods
Pelvic Neoplasms - complications
pelvic ureter, ureteric stenting, nephrostomy, renal failure, hydronephrosis, uroradiologist
Rectal Neoplasms - complications
Stents
Treatment Outcome
Ureteral Obstruction - etiology
Ureteral Obstruction - surgery
Urogenital Neoplasms - complications
title The Management of Ureteric Obstruction Secondary to Malignant Pelvic Disease
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T20%3A53%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Management%20of%20Ureteric%20Obstruction%20Secondary%20to%20Malignant%20Pelvic%20Disease&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20radiology&rft.au=Chitale,%20S.V&rft.date=2002-12&rft.volume=57&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1118&rft.epage=1121&rft.pages=1118-1121&rft.issn=0009-9260&rft.eissn=1365-229X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1053/crad.2002.1114&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E72762755%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72762755&rft_id=info:pmid/12475538&rft_els_id=S0009926002911141&rfr_iscdi=true