TRATAMIENTO DE LA ESTENOSIS PELVICO-URETERAL CON DISPOSITIVO ACUCISE®

(especial para SIIC © Derechos reservados)
La endopielotomía con dispositivo Acucise es una de las técnicas preferidas por los urólogos como opción terapéutica alternativa en la obstrucción de la unión pieloureteral por su menor tiempo quirúrgico, menor morbilidad, hospitalización más corta y menor costo hospitalario.
biyani9.jpg Autor:
Chandra shekhar Biyani
Columnista Experto de SIIC
Artículos publicados por Chandra shekhar Biyani
Coautores
DR Basavaraj* Victor Palit** 
FRCS (Urol), Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Wakefield, Reino Unido*
FRCS, Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Wakefield, Reino Unido**
Recepción del artículo
30 de Enero, 2007
Aprobación
23 de Marzo, 2007
Primera edición
13 de Noviembre, 2007
Segunda edición, ampliada y corregida
28 de Marzo, 2008

Resumen
La técnica de la endopielotomía con Acucise® se basa sobre el principio de la dilatación e incisión simultánea de una estrechez ureteral bajo control endoscópico sin necesidad de la ureteroscopia. Este procedimiento atrajo a muchos urólogos porque es fácil de aprender y puede realizarse como procedimiento ambulatorio con una experiencia endourológica mínima. La tasa de éxito para las distintas series es de 66% a 84% y la tasa de complicaciones graves en la mayoría de las series es baja (hemorragia, 0 a 4%). El dispositivo Acucise de nueva generación es más pequeño y por lo tanto su inserción es más fácil en ambos sexos. Aunque la endopielotomía con el dispositivo Acucise no iguala la tasa de éxito de la pieloplastia a cielo abierto, sigue siendo preferida por los urólogos como opción terapéutica alternativa en la obstrucción de la unión pieloureteral por su menor tiempo quirúrgico, menor morbilidad, hospitalización más corta y menor costo hospitalario.

Palabras clave
obstrucción de la unión pélvico-ureteral, endopielotomía, Acucise


Artículo completo

(castellano)
Extensión:  +/-8.29 páginas impresas en papel A4
Exclusivo para suscriptores/assinantes

Abstract
Acucise® endopyelotomy technique is based on the principle of simultaneous dilatation and incision of a ureteral narrowing under fluoroscopic guidance without the need for ureteroscopy. This procedure appealed to many urologists, as it is easy to learn, can be performed as an outpatient procedure with minimal endourological experience. The success rates for various series reports from 66-84% and serious complication rates for most series is low (bleeding-0-4%). The new generation acucise device is smaller and is therefore easy to insert in both sexes. Although acucise endopyelotomy does not match the success rate of open pyeloplasty, it is still preferred by urologists as an alternative treatment option in uretero-pelvic junction obstruction because of its reduced operative time, less morbidity, shorter hospitalisation and decreased cost to the hospital.

Key words
Acucise, pelviureteric junction obstruction, endopyelotomy


Full text
(english)
para suscriptores/ assinantes

Clasificación en siicsalud
Artículos originales > Expertos del Mundo >
página   www.siicsalud.com/des/expertocompleto.php/

Especialidades
Principal: Urología
Relacionadas: Cirugía, Obstetricia y Ginecología



Comprar este artículo
Extensión: 8.29 páginas impresas en papel A4

file05.gif (1491 bytes) Artículos seleccionados para su compra



Enviar correspondencia a:
Chandra Shekhar Biyani, Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust Pinderfields General Hospital Department of Urology, WF1 4DG, Aberford Road, Wakefield, Reino Unido
Bibliografía del artículo
1. Foley F. New plastic operation for strictures at ureteropelvic junction; report of 20 operations. J Urol 38:643, 1937.
2. Anderson J, Hynes W. Retrocaval ureter; case diagnosed preoperatively and treated successfully by plastic operation. Br J Urol 21:209, 1949.
3. Scardino PT, Scardino PL. Obstruction of the ureteropelvic junction. In Bergman H, ed: The Ureter. New York, Spinger-Verlag, p 697, 1984.
4. O'Reilly PH, Brooman PJC, Mak S, Jones M, et al. The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU International 87:287-289, 2001.
5. Gupta M, Tuncay OL, Smith A. Open surgical experience after failed endopyelotomy: A 12 year experience. J Urol 157:1613-1619, 1997.
6. Wickham JEA, Kellet MJ. Percutaneous pyeolysis. Eur Urol 9:122-4, 1983.
7. Badlani G, Eshgi M. Smith AD. Percutaneous surgery for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (endopyelotomy): technique and early results. J Urol 135:26-8, 1986.
8. Beckman C, Roth R. Secondary uretero-pelvic junction stricture: percutaneous dilatation. Radiology 164:365-7, 1987.
9. Abdel-Hakim A. Endopyelotomy for uretero-pelvic junction obstruction: is long-term stenting mandatory? J Endourol 1:265-8, 1987.
10. Danuser H, Ackerman DK, Bohlen D, Studer U. Endopyelotomy for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Risk factors determine the success rate. J Urol 159:56-61, 1998.
11. Goldfischer ER, Jabbour ME, Stravodimos KG, Klima WJ. Techniques of endopyelotomy. Br J Urol 82:1-7, 1998.
12. Marshall VF. Fibreoptics in Urology. J Urol 91:110-4, 1964.
13. Inglis JA, Tolley DA. Ureteroscopic pyelolysis for pelviureteric junction obstruction. Br J Urol 58:250-2, 1986.
14. Van Cangh PJ, Wilmart JF, Opsomer RJ, Abi-Aad A, et al. Long-term results and late recurrence after endoureteropyelotomy: A critical analysis of prognostic factors. J Urol 151:934-937, 1994.
15. Clayman RV. Balloon-facilitated antegrade endopyelotomy. Contemp Urol 4:13-6, 28, 109-11, 1992.
16. Biyani CS, Minhas S, Cast JE, Almond DJ, et al. The role of Acucise endopyelotomy in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 41:305-10, 2002.
17. Kletscher BA, Segura JW, LeRoy AJ, Patterson DE. Percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy: Review of 50 consecutive cases. J Urol 153:701, 1995.
18. Moon YT, Kerbl K, Pearle MS, Gardner SM, et al. Evaluation of optimal stent size after endourological incision of ureteral strictures. J Endourol 9:15-22, 1995.
19. Kerbl K, Chandhoke PS, Figenshau RS, et al. Effect of stent duration on ureteral healing following endoureterotomy in animal models. J Urol 150:1302-1305, 1993.
20. Hendrikx AJ, Nadorp S, De Beer NA, et al. The use of endoluminal ultrasonography for preventing significant bleeding during endopyelotomy: evaluation of helical computed tomography vs endoluminal ultrasonography for detecting crossing vessels. BJU Int 97:786-9, 2006.
21. Preminger GM, Clayman RV, Nakada SY, Babayan RK, et al. A multicenter clinical trial investigating the use of a fluoroscopically controlled cutting balloon catheter for the management of ureteral and ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J. Urol. 1997;157:1625-1629, .
22. Faerber GJ, Richardson TD, Farah N, Ohl DA. Retrograde treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction using the ureteral cutting balloon catheter. J Urol 157:454-458, 1997.
23. Galet A, Combe M, Ramackers JM, Ben Rais N, et al. Endopyelotomy with the Acucise cutting balloon device. Early clinical experience. Eur Urol 31:389-393, 1997.
24. Nadler R, Rao G, Pearle M, Nakada SY, Clayman RV. Acucise endopyelotomy: Assessment of long-term durability. J Urol 156:1094-1098, 1996.
25. Lechevallier E, Eghazarian C, Ortega J, et al. Retrograde acucise endopyelotomy: Long-term results. J Endourol 13:575-580, 1999.
26. Kim FJ, Herrell SD, Jahoda AE, Albala DM. Complications of acucise endopyelotomy. J Endourol 12:433-436, 1998.
27. Pickard R, Murthy LNS, Ramsden PD. Treatment of pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction using the Acucise device. J Endourol 12:211, 1998.
28. Koleski F, Jahoda A, Kim F, Albala D. Cutting balloon endopyelotomy: Experience in 107 procedures. J Endourol 12(Suppl 1):S130 [abstract 3-5], 1998.
29. Brito AH, Mitre AI, Arap S. Endopyelotomy with the Acucise catheter. Int Braz J Urol 28:302-9, 2002.
30. Weikert S, Christopher F, Muller M, et al. Acucise endopyelotomy: A technique with limited efficacy for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. International Journal of Urology 12:864-8, 2005.
31. Gill HS, Liao JC. Pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction treated with acucise retrograde endopyelotomy. Br J Urol 82:8-11, 1998.
32. Van Cangh PJ, Nesa S, Galeon M, Tombal B, et al. Vessels around the ureteropelvic junction: Significance and imaging by conventional radiology. J Endourol 10:111-119, 1996.
33. Nakada SY, Wolf JS, Brink JA, et al. Retrospective analysis of the effect of crossing vessels on successful retrograde endopyelotomy outcomes using spiral computerised tomography angiography. J Urol 159:62-65, 1998.
34. Walz J, Lecamus C, Lechevallier E, Barriol D. Complications of Acucise endopyelotomy. Prog Urol 13:39-45, 2003.
35. Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Parekh DJ, Wells N. Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J Endourol 17:155-60, 2003.
36. Cohen T, Gross M, Preminger G. Long-term follows up of acucise incision of ureteropelvic junction obstruction and ureteral stricture. Urology 47:317-23, 1996.
37. Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, Schuessler WW, Moore RG. Complications of open and endourological approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology 46:791-795, 1995.
38. Willard TB, Williams C, Krishnan R, Carson CC. Acucise endopyelotomy: A successful therapeutic intervention in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Tech Urol 4:118-123, 1998.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Está expresamente prohibida la redistribución y la redifusión de todo o parte de los contenidos de la Sociedad Iberoamericana de Información Científica (SIIC) S.A. sin previo y expreso consentimiento de SIIC.
ua31618

Copyright siicsalud © 1997-2024 ISSN siicsalud: 1667-9008