Factors Accountable for Unabated Obstruction Following Pyeloplasty.
Cells of Cajal
DTPA renogram
frusemide washout
glomerular filtration rate
pelvic pacemaker
pyeloplasty
Journal
Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons
ISSN: 0971-9261
Titre abrégé: J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101179870
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
22
11
2019
revised:
07
03
2020
accepted:
06
09
2020
entrez:
6
5
2021
pubmed:
7
5
2021
medline:
7
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Split renal function (SFR) and frusemide washout (FWO) are assessed by the DTPA renogram to measure the renal parenchymal functions as well as the evidence of obstruction, both for diagnosis and to treat the pelviureteric junction obstruction. In good number of renal units, both these parameters remain unaltered even after surgery and cause anguish to parents and referring physicians and are usually attributed toward "defective pyeloplasty." In this study, we have tried to single out the bona fide responsible factor for the bad outcome; either the nonreversible kidney or the restenosis of pyeloplasty. We studied file of 69 patients in whom a double "J" (DJ) stent was left In our study, 45 patients (65.2%) showed improvement either in SRF or in FWO or in both after 8 weeks following pyeloplasty and 24 of 69 units (34.8%) did not show any change in renal function with DJ stent in place. Only in six units (8.7%), out of 69 units had deterioration of renal function after removal of DJ stent. In our opinion, no improvement of renal function found in 24 units (34.8%) even with internal drainage with DJ indicates irreversible renal damage. In 45 units (65.2%), renal function reversed after pyeloplasty and DJ stent. However, after the removal of the DJ, functions deteriorated in six units (8.7%) due to restenosis following pyeloplasties.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33953509
doi: 10.4103/jiaps.JIAPS_202_19
pii: JIAPS-26-27
pmc: PMC8074819
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
27-31Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2021 Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
Anat Rec. 1973 Feb;175(2):139-53
pubmed: 4685555
Clin Nucl Med. 1993 Oct;18(10):872-6
pubmed: 8242981
J Urol. 1993 Aug;150(2 Pt 2):769-73
pubmed: 8326643
BJU Int. 2002 Jul;90(1):72-5
pubmed: 12081774
J Nucl Med. 2000 Jun;41(6):1030-6
pubmed: 10855630
Pediatr Surg Int. 2001 Sep;17(7):524-7
pubmed: 11666050
Pediatr Surg Int. 2000;16(3):189-93
pubmed: 10786979
J Urol. 2003 Dec;170(6 Pt 1):2420-2
pubmed: 14634443
World J Urol. 1996;14(6):380-3
pubmed: 8986040
J Urol. 1999 Sep;162(3 Pt 2):1029-32
pubmed: 10458425
Pediatrics. 1975 Nov;56(5):740-7
pubmed: 1196730
J Urol. 2001 Jun;165(6 Pt 2):2311-5
pubmed: 11371969
BJU Int. 2001 Jun;87(9):853-6
pubmed: 11412226
Ann Nucl Med. 2003 Dec;17(8):663-8
pubmed: 14971608
J Urol. 1989 Jul;142(1):199-203
pubmed: 2733103
J Urol. 1995 Nov;154(5):1889-93
pubmed: 7563377
J Urol. 1999 Sep;162(3 Pt 2):1041-4
pubmed: 10458428
Br J Urol. 1984 Feb;56(1):9-12
pubmed: 6697112
J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2017 Jul-Sep;22(3):129-133
pubmed: 28694567
J Urol. 1973 Feb;109(2):187-91
pubmed: 4685727
BJU Int. 2003 Nov;92(7):779-82
pubmed: 14616466
J Urol. 1999 Sep;162(3 Pt 2):1037-40
pubmed: 10458427
J Urol. 1984 Oct;132(4):725-8
pubmed: 6381766
Br J Urol. 1998 Jan;81(1):152-5
pubmed: 9467493
J Urol. 2003 May;169(5):1809-12; discussion 1812; author reply 1812
pubmed: 12686849