原发性梗阻性巨结肠症内镜治疗中膀胱镜控制与放射学控制的比较研究。

J González Cayón, A Parente Hernández, A Ramírez Calazans, V Vargas Cruz, A Escassi Gil, R M Paredes Esteban
{"title":"原发性梗阻性巨结肠症内镜治疗中膀胱镜控制与放射学控制的比较研究。","authors":"J González Cayón, A Parente Hernández, A Ramírez Calazans, V Vargas Cruz, A Escassi Gil, R M Paredes Esteban","doi":"10.54847/cp.2024.01.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>High-pressure balloon pneumatic dilatation for the treatment of primary obstructive megaureter (POM) was initially described under cystoscopic and radiological control. However, some groups use cystoscopic control only, in an attempt to avoid the ionizing radiation associated with the procedure.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective study of POM patients treated with pneumatic dilatation in our unit from 2008 to 2021 was carried out. Success rates, complications, and follow-up were compared between two groups -dilatation under cystoscopic control alone (CS) vs. dilatation under radiological control only (RX).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>23 patients -9 CS and 14 RX- underwent surgery. Both groups were demographically comparable. Mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the CS group (1 vs. 2 days; p =  0.009). Operating time was longer in the RX group (78 vs. 30 min; p =  0.001). Ureterovesical junction (UVJ) dilatation was successful in 100% of CS vs. 79% of RX cases; RR: 3.87 (0.51-26.99). Postoperative complications were similar in both groups; RR: 3.87 (0.51-26.99). Double J stent migration occurred in one case in both groups; RR: 0.64 (0.05-9.03). In the long-term, treatment success rate was higher in the CS group (100% vs. 71%); RR: 3.87 (0.51-26.99).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>POM pneumatic dilatation under cystoscopic control alone is faster, without increasing the risk of complications. Based on our experience, we suggest ionizing radiation be removed, since we consider it to be unnecessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":94306,"journal":{"name":"Cirugia pediatrica : organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Cirugia Pediatrica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study of cystoscopic control vs. radiological control in the endoscopic treatment of primary obstructive megaurater.\",\"authors\":\"J González Cayón, A Parente Hernández, A Ramírez Calazans, V Vargas Cruz, A Escassi Gil, R M Paredes Esteban\",\"doi\":\"10.54847/cp.2024.01.13\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>High-pressure balloon pneumatic dilatation for the treatment of primary obstructive megaureter (POM) was initially described under cystoscopic and radiological control. However, some groups use cystoscopic control only, in an attempt to avoid the ionizing radiation associated with the procedure.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective study of POM patients treated with pneumatic dilatation in our unit from 2008 to 2021 was carried out. Success rates, complications, and follow-up were compared between two groups -dilatation under cystoscopic control alone (CS) vs. dilatation under radiological control only (RX).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>23 patients -9 CS and 14 RX- underwent surgery. Both groups were demographically comparable. Mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the CS group (1 vs. 2 days; p =  0.009). Operating time was longer in the RX group (78 vs. 30 min; p =  0.001). Ureterovesical junction (UVJ) dilatation was successful in 100% of CS vs. 79% of RX cases; RR: 3.87 (0.51-26.99). Postoperative complications were similar in both groups; RR: 3.87 (0.51-26.99). Double J stent migration occurred in one case in both groups; RR: 0.64 (0.05-9.03). In the long-term, treatment success rate was higher in the CS group (100% vs. 71%); RR: 3.87 (0.51-26.99).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>POM pneumatic dilatation under cystoscopic control alone is faster, without increasing the risk of complications. Based on our experience, we suggest ionizing radiation be removed, since we consider it to be unnecessary.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cirugia pediatrica : organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Cirugia Pediatrica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cirugia pediatrica : organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Cirugia Pediatrica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54847/cp.2024.01.13\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cirugia pediatrica : organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Cirugia Pediatrica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54847/cp.2024.01.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:用于治疗原发性梗阻性巨输尿管(POM)的高压球囊气压扩张术最初是在膀胱镜和放射学控制下进行的。然而,一些研究小组仅使用膀胱镜控制,试图避免与手术相关的电离辐射:我们对 2008 年至 2021 年在本单位接受气压扩张术治疗的 POM 患者进行了回顾性研究。比较了两组患者的成功率、并发症和随访情况--仅在膀胱镜控制下的扩张术(CS)与仅在放射学控制下的扩张术(RX)。两组在人口统计学上具有可比性。CS组的平均住院时间明显更短(1天 vs. 2天;P = 0.009)。RX 组的手术时间更长(78 分钟对 30 分钟;P = 0.001)。输尿管膀胱交界处(UVJ)扩张成功率 CS 组为 100%,RX 组为 79%;RR:3.87 (0.51-26.99)。两组术后并发症相似;RR:3.87(0.51-26.99)。两组均有一例发生双 J 支架移位;RR:0.64(0.05-9.03)。从长期来看,CS 组的治疗成功率更高(100% 对 71%);RR:3.87(0.51-26.99):仅在膀胱镜控制下进行 POM 气动扩张术更快,且不会增加并发症风险。根据我们的经验,我们建议取消电离辐射,因为我们认为电离辐射是不必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative study of cystoscopic control vs. radiological control in the endoscopic treatment of primary obstructive megaurater.

Objective: High-pressure balloon pneumatic dilatation for the treatment of primary obstructive megaureter (POM) was initially described under cystoscopic and radiological control. However, some groups use cystoscopic control only, in an attempt to avoid the ionizing radiation associated with the procedure.

Materials and methods: A retrospective study of POM patients treated with pneumatic dilatation in our unit from 2008 to 2021 was carried out. Success rates, complications, and follow-up were compared between two groups -dilatation under cystoscopic control alone (CS) vs. dilatation under radiological control only (RX).

Results: 23 patients -9 CS and 14 RX- underwent surgery. Both groups were demographically comparable. Mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the CS group (1 vs. 2 days; p =  0.009). Operating time was longer in the RX group (78 vs. 30 min; p =  0.001). Ureterovesical junction (UVJ) dilatation was successful in 100% of CS vs. 79% of RX cases; RR: 3.87 (0.51-26.99). Postoperative complications were similar in both groups; RR: 3.87 (0.51-26.99). Double J stent migration occurred in one case in both groups; RR: 0.64 (0.05-9.03). In the long-term, treatment success rate was higher in the CS group (100% vs. 71%); RR: 3.87 (0.51-26.99).

Conclusion: POM pneumatic dilatation under cystoscopic control alone is faster, without increasing the risk of complications. Based on our experience, we suggest ionizing radiation be removed, since we consider it to be unnecessary.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信