中文(简体)
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde 1995-Sep

[From urostoma to bladder replacement: current possibilities in urinary diversion].

只有注册用户可以翻译文章
登陆注册
链接已保存到剪贴板
S Horenblas
W Meinhardt
M B van Eekeren

关键词

抽象

OBJECTIVE

To analyse 48 urinary diversions in an oncological patient population.

METHODS

Retrospective study.

METHODS

The Dutch cancer institute 'Nederlands Kanker Instituut/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Ziekenhuis' in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

METHODS

The medical records of all patients who had a urinary diversion in the period 1989-1993 were analysed for type of diversion, indication for this specific type and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

In 48 patients (24 women and 24 men with a mean age of 62.1 years) a urinary diversion was constructed because of cystectomy for bladder cancer (n = 27), cystectomy in total pelvic exenteration (13), total urinary incontinence following radiotherapy (5), urethral cancer (1) or local palliation (2). Twenty-one diversions according to Bricker, 25 continent reservoirs according to Rowland and (or) neo-bladders, I ureterosigmoidostomy and I continent access to the bladder (Mitrofanoff procedure) were done. The standard diversion according to Bricker was preferred in the following circumstances: extensive intestinal resections (also previous ones), older age, fear of incontinence or no need for continent diversion. Specific problems of the new diversion techniques were difficulties of patients with catheterising the reservoir and folic acid deficiency. All other postoperative problems were related to the extensiveness of the primary oncological procedure rather than to the diversion technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Apart from a few contraindications such as shortage of intestine, tumour growth into the urethra and patients' inability or unwillingness to catheterize themselves, there are no objections to the new diversion techniques (continent reservoir/neo-bladder). Patients being considered for urinary diversion ought to be informed about these new techniques.

加入我们的脸书专页

科学支持的最完整的草药数据库

  • 支持55种语言
  • 科学支持的草药疗法
  • 通过图像识别草药
  • 交互式GPS地图-在位置标记草药(即将推出)
  • 阅读与您的搜索相关的科学出版物
  • 通过药效搜索药草
  • 组织您的兴趣并及时了解新闻研究,临床试验和专利

输入症状或疾病,并阅读可能有用的草药,输入草药并查看所使用的疾病和症状。
*所有信息均基于已发表的科学研究

Google Play badgeApp Store badge