Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Reading: Outcome of retrograde ureteric stenting as a urinary drainage procedure in ureteric obstruct...

Download

A- A+
Alt. Display

Papers

Outcome of retrograde ureteric stenting as a urinary drainage procedure in ureteric obstruction related to malignant lesions

Authors:

S Wijayarathna ,

Department of Urology, Colombo South Teaching Hospital, LK
X close

S Suvendran,

Department of Urology, Colombo South Teaching Hospital, LK
X close

M Ishak,

Department of Urology, Colombo South Teaching Hospital, LK
X close

A Weligamage,

Department of Urology, Colombo South Teaching Hospital, LK
X close

A Epa,

Department of Radiology, Colombo South Teaching Hospital, LK
X close

S Munasinghe,

Public Health Department, Norwich, LK
X close

AM Abeyguneskera

Department of Urology, Colombo South Teaching Hospital, LK
X close

Abstract

Objectives We investigated the outcome of endoscopic retrograde ureteric stenting (RUS) in patients with ureteric obstruction related to malignant lesions.

Methods Data were prospectively collected from patients with ureteric obstruction related to malignant lesions treated at a single urology unit from 1 January 2011 to 30 April 2014. All patients had radiologically significant hydronephrosis by ultrasonography and CT scanning. First choice of urinary drainage was placing a retrograde ureteric stent cystoscopically. Outcome of patients who had stenting were recorded after following them until death or removal of stents.

Results Eighty two patients with ureteric obstruction related to malignant lesions had complete data. In 33 (25%) patients, retrograde ureteric stenting was possible. Fifteen of them had recurrent tumour in the pelvis at the time of stenting and 13 (87%) were dead within 3 months of stenting. Four of the five patients who did not have pelvic tumour recurrence were alive at the end of the study. All eight patients who underwent stenting before surgery as a prophylactic measure and three of the five patients who had retroperitoneal tumour mass and underwent RUS were alive. Stenting was not possible in 42 patients. Thirty eight of them had pelvic tumour recurrences and two were having retroperitoneal tumour masses. Only one did not have tumour in the pelvis.CT evidence of tumour recurrence in the pelvis (OR 12.7; 95% CI 1.3-117.6; p=0.026) and high serum creatinine (OR 4.3; 95% CI 1.6-11.7; p=0.004) were associated with failure to ureteric stenting.

Conclusions Chances of successful RUS were low in patients with ureteric obstruction in the presence of tumour recurrences or elevated serum creatinine. Even if ureteric stenting was successful, their life expectancy was short.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/cmj.v59i4.7864

Ceylon Medical Journal 2014; 59: 124-127

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4038/cmj.v59i4.7864
How to Cite: Wijayarathna, S., Suvendran, S., Ishak, M., Weligamage, A., Epa, A., Munasinghe, S. and Abeyguneskera, A., 2014. Outcome of retrograde ureteric stenting as a urinary drainage procedure in ureteric obstruction related to malignant lesions. Ceylon Medical Journal, 59(4), pp.124–127. DOI: http://doi.org/10.4038/cmj.v59i4.7864
Published on 27 Dec 2014.
Peer Reviewed

Downloads

  • PDF (EN)

    comments powered by Disqus