Placement of double-J stent in patients with malignant ureteral obstruction: antegrade or retrograde approach?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorTurgut, B.
dc.contributor.authorBayraktar, A. M.
dc.contributor.authorBakdik, S.
dc.contributor.authorHamarat, M. B.
dc.contributor.authorOncu, F.
dc.contributor.authorGonen, M.
dc.contributor.authorTolu, I
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-23T14:02:39Z
dc.date.available2024-02-23T14:02:39Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.departmentNEÜen_US
dc.description.abstractAIM: To determine whether antegrade or retrograde methods should be preferred for double-J stent placement in patients with malignant ureteral obstruction (MUO). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The medical records of patients treated for MUO in the Urology and Interventional Radiology Clinic, Konya Training and Research Hospital, were reviewed retrospectively. Patients with benign aetiology were excluded from the study. Reports of the procedures, ultrasonography findings, computed tomography (CT), angiography, and pyelography images and the follow-up records of patients with MUO were assessed. A total of 111 patients and 114 ureteral stenting treatments were included in the study; 63 (55.3%) were operated on using the antegrade ureteral stenting (AUS) method, whereas 51 (44.7%) were operated on using the retrograde ureteral stenting (RUS), method, and the characteristics of these groups were evaluated. The presence of hydroureteronephrosis and ureteral tortuosity were determined. RESULTS: Overall success rates were found to be 95.2% using the AUS method and 47.1% using the RUS method. The technical success of the antegrade method was significantly higher in patients with or without tortuosity (respectively: p=0.005, Z shape p=0.001, pigtail shape p=0.03500). The technical success of the antegrade method was significantly higher in patients with hydroureteronephrosis (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: The AUS technique should be the first choice for double-J stent placement in patients with MUO. (C) 2019 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.crad.2019.08.006
dc.identifier.issn0009-9260
dc.identifier.issn1365-229X
dc.identifier.issue12en_US
dc.identifier.pmid31506172en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85071845810en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.08.006
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12452/11791
dc.identifier.volume74en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000496937600024en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherW B Saunders Co Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Radiologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subject[Keyword Not Available]en_US
dc.titlePlacement of double-J stent in patients with malignant ureteral obstruction: antegrade or retrograde approach?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu