PERCUTANEUS NEPHROSTOMY IN PATIENTS WITH OBSTRUCTIVE UROPATHY DUE TO MALIGNANCY: A SURVIVAL ANALYSIS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
Objective:To find out effectiveness of percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) and patient survival rate as palliative decompression of the obstructed urinary system due to malignancy (urogenital neoplasias). Materials & Methods: A cohort retrospective study was performed with 76 patients (58 female and 18 male) with malignancy process who were undergoing percutaneous nephrostomy during January 2009 – December 2012, in Sardjito General Hospital Yogyakarta. Survival analysis was done by Kaplan-Meier method and differences were assessed using the log-rank test. Results:There was no procedure-related mortality. The mean of age was 49.14 years. The primary tumoral site was the uterine cervix in 56.6 %, the bladder in 17.1 %, the prostate in 2.6% and other sites (intestinal, ovarium and other malignancies caused obstructive uropathy) in 23.7%. The patients died during the hospitalization period due to advanced neoplasia are 17.1%. The mortality rate was higher in patients with interval between diagnose of obstructive uropathy and nephrostomy > 7 days (HR=5.7; 95%CI 4.5-6.9; p = 0.001) and in those who required hemodialysis before the procedure (HR=6.1; 95%CI 4.7-7.4; p = 0.001). The survival rate was 55.2% (42/76) at 6 months and 32.9% (25/76) at 12 months. The percentage of the lifetime spent in hospitalization was 17.1% (13/76). There are no differences on survival rate in that patients based on neoplasias type and age.Conclusion: The urinary obstruction must be immediately relieved. The percutaneous nephrostomy is a safe and effective method for relief the obstruction. Patient with hemodialysis before the procedure had a poor prognosis.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Nephrostomy, percutaneous, obstructive uropathy, urogenital neoplasias, malignancy
Méndez-Probst CE, Razvi H, Denstedt JD. Fundamentals of Instrumentation and Urinary Tract Drainage. In: Campbell-Walsh Urology. 10th Ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2012. p. 177-90.
Romero FR, Groglio M, Pires SR, Roca RF, Guiu IA, Perez MD. Indications for Percutaneous Nephrostomy in Patients with Obstructive Uropathy Due to Malignant Urogenital Neoplasias. Int Braz J Urol. 2005; 31(2): 117-24.
Jalbani MH, Deenari RA, Dholia KR, Oad AK, Arbani IA. Role of Percutaneous Nephrostomy (PCN) in Malignant Ureteral Obstruction. J Park Med Assoc. 2010; 60(4): 280-3.
Sood G, Sood A, Jindal A, Verma DK, Dhiman DS. Ultrasound Guided Percutaneous Nephrostomy for Obstructive Uropathy in Benign and Malignant Diseases. Int Braz J Urol. 2006; 32(3): 281-6.
Naeem M, Jan MA, Ullah A, Ali L, Khan S, ul Haq A, et al. Percutaneous Nephrostomy for the Relief of Upper Urinary Tract Obstruction: An Experience with 200 Cases. JPMI. 2010; 24 (2): 147-52.
El-Hakiem A, Ellah MA, Youssef HA, Saleh AS, Hassanein MA. Effect of Unilateral Ureteral Ligation on Blood Constituents Renal Histopathology and Ultrasonography in Dogs. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances. 2011; 10 (3): 356-64.
Carrafiello G, Lagana D, Mangini M. Complications of Percutaneous Nephrostomy in the Treatment of Malignant Ureteral Obstructions: Single-Centre Review. Radiol Med. 2006; 111: 562-71.
Misra S, Coker C, Richenberg J. Percutaneous Nephrostomy for Ureteric Obstruction Due to Advanced Pelvic Malignancy: Have We Got the Balance Right? Int Urol Nephrol. Springer Science; 2013.
Dagli M, Ramchandani P. Percutaneous Nephrostomy: Technical Aspects and Indications. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2011; 28: 242-37.
Regalado SP. Emergency Percutaneus Nephostomy. Semin Intervent Radiol, 2006; 23: 287-94.
Canales BK, Hendlin K, Braasch M. Percutaneous Nephrostomy Catheters: Drainage Flow and Retention Strength. J Urol. 2005; 66: 261-65.
Funaki B, Tepper JA. Percutaneus Nephrostomy. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2006; 23: 205-8.