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:...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical radiology 2002-12, Vol.57 (12), p.1118-1121 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 |