antegrade pyelography
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

57
(FIVE YEARS 5)

H-INDEX

11
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2021 ◽  
pp. 205141582199372
Author(s):  
Dariush Irani ◽  
Abdolreza Haghpanah ◽  
Mohammad Mehdi Hosseini ◽  
Leila Malekmakan ◽  
Mohammad Ali Ashraf ◽  
...  

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the differences in outcomes and complications in stone-directed antegrade pyelography using the ‘bull’s eye’ technique in patients with renal stones versus the conventional method of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Although conventional PCNL access using retrograde pyelography is useful, it is time-consuming and may cause postoperative discomfort. Herein, we report our experience in the application of this new technique. Methods: Between January 2017 and June 2018, 100 patients participated in this randomized clinical trial. Stone-directed antegrade pyelography using the ‘bull’s eye’ technique under fluoroscopic guidance was used for percutaneous access in the intervention group. The second group, consisting of those who had undergone conventional PCNL using retrograde pyelography and ‘bull’s eye’ technique in the same period, were considered as the controls. Pre- and postoperative laboratory examinations, surgical results and complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Results: A single calyceal puncture in partial staghorn and staghorn stone patients was sufficient in 72.2% of the antegrade group and in 78.9% of the retrograde group ( p=0.69). The double-puncture technique was necessary for 71.9% of renal pelvis stones in the antegrade group and for 9.4% in the retrograde group ( p<0.001). The antegrade approach reduced the mean operative time and analgesic requirement significantly ( p<0.001). No statistically significant difference, however, was found between the two groups regarding stone migration to the ureter, radiation time and postoperative complications. Conclusions: The stone-directed antegrade approach using the ‘bull’s eye’ technique is a safe and accurate method in PCNL access in patients with radiopaque and semi-opaque renal stones.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1098612X2098398
Author(s):  
Charles Lemieux ◽  
Catherine Vachon ◽  
Guy Beauchamp ◽  
Marilyn E Dunn

Objectives The aim of the study was to describe renal pelvis (RP) and ureteral ultrasonographic measurements in a population of cats with confirmed benign ureteral obstruction (UO) by antegrade pyelography. The secondary objective was to further describe clinical findings associated with minimally dilated obstructed kidneys in an attempt to better understand its occurrence. Methods Retrospective case series of cats diagnosed with benign UO were confirmed by antegrade pyelography. Medical records were reviewed and signalment, diagnostic imaging results, serum creatinine (SCr) concentration and urine culture results were recorded. Each obstructed kidney was categorized into two groups: group 1 included all RP measurements ⩽4 mm and group 2 included all RP measurements >4 mm. Results A total of 82 cats with 114 obstructed ureters met the inclusion criteria. Fifty (61%) cats had a unilateral UO and 32 (39%) had a bilateral UO. Thirty (26%) kidneys were included in group 1 while 84 (74%) were included in group 2. Nine (8%) kidneys had an RP dilation ⩽2 mm. Median RP and ureteral diameters were 6.6 mm (range 1.1–37.0 mm) and 3.2 mm (range 0.0–11.0 mm), respectively. RP size correlated positively with ureteral diameter in the study population ( P <0.0001), but not in group 1 when analyzed separately ( P = 0.47). UO was secondary to stones in 80 (70%) ureters. Seventeen (21%) cats had a positive urine culture. At admission, 79 (96%) cats were azotemic with a median preoperative SCr concentration of 444 µmol/l (range 108–1326 μmol/l). The mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) preoperative SCr concentration was significantly higher in group 1 (762 µmol/l [498–1165 μmol/l]) than in group 2 (409 µmol/l [333–502 μmol/l]). RP size in the two groups correlated negatively with preoperative SCr concentration ( P = 0.0002). Conclusions and relevance Feline UO may be associated with minimal RP dilation and the severity of RP and ureteral dilation can be highly variable. Absence of significant RP dilation does not rule out UO in cats.


2020 ◽  
Vol 189 (3) ◽  
pp. 843-848
Author(s):  
Rosa S Djajadiningrat ◽  
Jochen Walz ◽  
Lukas C van Dijk ◽  
Hossain Roshani

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 198-204
Author(s):  
Dario d’Ovidio ◽  
Federica Pirrone ◽  
Thomas M. Donnelly ◽  
Adelaide Greco ◽  
Leonardo Meomartino

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e2533-e2535
Author(s):  
C. Ediz ◽  
S.S. Ediz ◽  
Ö. Yilmaz ◽  
M.C. Temel

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Syed Saleem Abbas Jafri ◽  
Nawaz Chughtai Chughtai

Objective: To analyse the Urological Complications after Renal Transplantation and their management. Material and methods: -A retrospective analysis of 1150 consecutive live donor renal transplants was performed. The study period extended from December 1995 to December 2004. The surgical procedure for ureteral reimplantation was modified Lich anastomosis. Ultrasonography, renal scanning, antegrade pyelography, retrograde pyelography and cystography were the diagnostic tools. Results: -Overall, 68 primary urological complications (5.9%) were identified during the 15-year experience in 65 patients. The Urological Complications in our series included 35 ureteral obstruction (3.0%), 25 ureteral or bladder leaks (2.17%), 05 out flow obstruction, 02 cases of vesicoureteral reflux and 01 case of ureteral stone. Conclusion: The incidence of Urological Complications in our study is 5.9%. Early exploration of the ureteric leaks and timely intervention to obstructed kidney reduced the morbidity and improves graft su rvival. The causes of these complications and techniques for their prevention are discussed in this study.


2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 61
Author(s):  
Ö. Yilmaz ◽  
Ö. Kurul ◽  
U. Madenoğlu ◽  
F. Saraçoğlu ◽  
H. Soydan ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 225
Author(s):  
BabajideOlawale Balogun ◽  
JamesIdowu Owolabi ◽  
AbdulwaidNiran Saliu ◽  
MichaelAkintayo Bankole

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document