Linked Life Data

1512824

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/1512824

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
3
pubmed:dateCreated
1992-9-29
pubmed:abstractText
To date 2 approaches have been developed for performing endopyelotomy, that is the antegrade and retrograde approaches. Experience with antegrade transnephrostomy endopyelotomy is quite large and the results have been excellent. However, the need for percutaneous nephrostomy and prolonged hospitalization have been 2 drawbacks to this approach. In contrast, experience with retrograde transureteral endopyelotomy is scant. However, a ureteroscopic approach is attractive from the standpoint of eliminating the need for a large nephrostomy tube and because of the possibility of performing this procedure on an outpatient basis or during a short hospital stay. We report our experience with antegrade and retrograde endopyelotomy in 41 patients. The hospital stay (3.4 versus 4.0 days), nephrostomy tube size (8F to 10F versus 20F to 22F) and nephrostomy tube duration (2.9 versus 3.8 days) were all less with the retrograde approach. The initial success rate was similar between the 2 methods: 79% (retrograde) versus 78% (antegrade). However, the analgesic requirements (5.3 versus 3.5 doses) and the occurrence of significant complications (that is late ureteral stricture in 20%) were greater with the ureteroscopic approach. With the methods currently available, we believe that antegrade endopyelotomy is the preferred approach for endopyelotomy.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
AIM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Sep
pubmed:issn
0022-5347
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
148
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
775-82; discussion 782-3
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1992
pubmed:articleTitle
Endopyelotomy: comparison of ureteroscopic retrograde and antegrade percutaneous techniques.
pubmed:affiliation
Division of Urology, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study