A Technique Which We Should Consider More: Temporary Cutaneous Ureterostomy

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and complications of cutaneous ureterostomy (CU) in different indications. Materials and Methods: Data from 83 patients who underwent CU between 1991 and 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients with neurogenic bladder, posterior urethral valves,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of urological surgery 2021-06, Vol.8 (2), p.118-122
Main Authors: Citamak, Burak, Dogan, Hasan Serkan, Ceylan, Taner, Artykov, Meylis, Tekgul, Serdar
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Age
Bladder
Care and treatment
Catheters
cutaneous ureterostomy
hydronephrosis
megaureter
Methods
Ostomy
Patient outcomes
Patients
Surgery
Ureterostomy
ureterovesical junction obstruction
urinary diversion
Urinary tract infections
Urologic diseases
vesicoureteral reflux
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-465453447ab6d88847b1d5b64f95dd0dcdfb106a7d41ef8766e52cc20ed785b33
cites
container_end_page 122
container_issue 2
container_start_page 118
container_title Journal of urological surgery
container_volume 8
creator Citamak, Burak
Dogan, Hasan Serkan
Ceylan, Taner
Artykov, Meylis
Tekgul, Serdar
description Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and complications of cutaneous ureterostomy (CU) in different indications. Materials and Methods: Data from 83 patients who underwent CU between 1991 and 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients with neurogenic bladder, posterior urethral valves, solitary kidney and bilateral kidney involvement were excluded. A total of 53 patients aged
doi_str_mv 10.4274/jus.galenos.2020.3968
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_ac22e9cce8d3452cb8522096af025002</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A666103648</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_ac22e9cce8d3452cb8522096af025002</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A666103648</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-465453447ab6d88847b1d5b64f95dd0dcdfb106a7d41ef8766e52cc20ed785b33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkVtLAzEQhRdRULQ_QVjwuWvuyfpWijdUfNDiY8gmszalu6nJ7oP_3tSKF5B5yDCcOUzOVxSnGFWMSHa-GlP1atbQh1QRRFBFa6H2iiOCmZrWXKH9X_1hMUlphRDCkiosyVFxNyufwS57_zZC-bL0dlm-QPm0DOPalfPQJ-8glg8hwkUWdpsQTXwv5-NgeghjKhcRBoghDaF7PykOWrNOMPl6j4vF1eXz_GZ6_3h9O5_dTy2t8TBlgjNOGZOmEU4pxWSDHW8Ea2vuHHLWtQ1GwkjHMLRKCgGcWEsQOKl4Q-lxcbvzdcGs9Cb6Lt-kg_H6cxDiqzZx8HYN2lhCoLYWlKMsuzSKE4JqYVpEOEIke53tvDYx5AjSoFdhjH0-XxPOqBSUYPqj2iatfd-GIRrb-WT1TAiBERVMZVX1jyqXg87b0EPr8_zPAt8t2JxgitB-fwYjvaWrM139RVdv6eotXfoBmw6YhQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2543763213</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Technique Which We Should Consider More: Temporary Cutaneous Ureterostomy</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Citamak, Burak ; Dogan, Hasan Serkan ; Ceylan, Taner ; Artykov, Meylis ; Tekgul, Serdar</creator><creatorcontrib>Citamak, Burak ; Dogan, Hasan Serkan ; Ceylan, Taner ; Artykov, Meylis ; Tekgul, Serdar</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and complications of cutaneous ureterostomy (CU) in different indications. Materials and Methods: Data from 83 patients who underwent CU between 1991 and 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients with neurogenic bladder, posterior urethral valves, solitary kidney and bilateral kidney involvement were excluded. A total of 53 patients aged &lt;2 years were included in the analysis. Indications to perform CU were ureterovesical junction obstruction (UVJO) and high-grade vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) with dilatation. Ureteroureterostomy or ureteroneocystostomy methods were preferred for undiversion according to the dilatation status of the ureter. Results: The mean patient age was 4.47[+ or -]3.6 months, 40 (75.5%) were male and 13 (24.5%) were female. The mean follow-up time was 57.4[+ or -]41.4 (6-150) months. Loop and end CU were performed in 18 (34%) and 35 (66%) patients, respectively. The indications for CU were UVJO in 26 (49%) and high-grade VUR in 27 patients. Two (3.7%) patients needed dilatation because of stenosis that occurred after CU. Within the follow-up time, 39 patients underwent undiversion. The clinical improvement rate was 94.3%. Conclusion: CU is a simple method with satisfactory results when performed in patients with megaureter and massive dilatation. Despite the less frequent use, it is still an important alternative to the increasingly used conservative methods. Keywords: Cutaneous ureterostomy, urinary diversion, hydronephrosis, megaureter, vesicoureteral reflux, ureterovesical junction obstruction</description><identifier>ISSN: 2148-9580</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2148-9580</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4274/jus.galenos.2020.3968</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ankara: Galenos Yayinevi Tic. Ltd</publisher><subject>Age ; Bladder ; Care and treatment ; Catheters ; cutaneous ureterostomy ; hydronephrosis ; megaureter ; Methods ; Ostomy ; Patient outcomes ; Patients ; Surgery ; Ureterostomy ; ureterovesical junction obstruction ; urinary diversion ; Urinary tract infections ; Urologic diseases ; vesicoureteral reflux</subject><ispartof>Journal of urological surgery, 2021-06, Vol.8 (2), p.118-122</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Galenos Yayinevi Tic. Ltd.</rights><rights>2021. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-465453447ab6d88847b1d5b64f95dd0dcdfb106a7d41ef8766e52cc20ed785b33</citedby><orcidid>0000-0002-3708-459X ; 0000-0003-4044-1778 ; 0000-0002-8470-8246 ; 0000-0002-1145-7343 ; 0000-0002-7341-8753</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2543763213/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2543763213?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,25732,27903,27904,36991,44569,74873</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Citamak, Burak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dogan, Hasan Serkan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ceylan, Taner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Artykov, Meylis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tekgul, Serdar</creatorcontrib><title>A Technique Which We Should Consider More: Temporary Cutaneous Ureterostomy</title><title>Journal of urological surgery</title><description>Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and complications of cutaneous ureterostomy (CU) in different indications. Materials and Methods: Data from 83 patients who underwent CU between 1991 and 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients with neurogenic bladder, posterior urethral valves, solitary kidney and bilateral kidney involvement were excluded. A total of 53 patients aged &lt;2 years were included in the analysis. Indications to perform CU were ureterovesical junction obstruction (UVJO) and high-grade vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) with dilatation. Ureteroureterostomy or ureteroneocystostomy methods were preferred for undiversion according to the dilatation status of the ureter. Results: The mean patient age was 4.47[+ or -]3.6 months, 40 (75.5%) were male and 13 (24.5%) were female. The mean follow-up time was 57.4[+ or -]41.4 (6-150) months. Loop and end CU were performed in 18 (34%) and 35 (66%) patients, respectively. The indications for CU were UVJO in 26 (49%) and high-grade VUR in 27 patients. Two (3.7%) patients needed dilatation because of stenosis that occurred after CU. Within the follow-up time, 39 patients underwent undiversion. The clinical improvement rate was 94.3%. Conclusion: CU is a simple method with satisfactory results when performed in patients with megaureter and massive dilatation. Despite the less frequent use, it is still an important alternative to the increasingly used conservative methods. Keywords: Cutaneous ureterostomy, urinary diversion, hydronephrosis, megaureter, vesicoureteral reflux, ureterovesical junction obstruction</description><subject>Age</subject><subject>Bladder</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Catheters</subject><subject>cutaneous ureterostomy</subject><subject>hydronephrosis</subject><subject>megaureter</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Ostomy</subject><subject>Patient outcomes</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Ureterostomy</subject><subject>ureterovesical junction obstruction</subject><subject>urinary diversion</subject><subject>Urinary tract infections</subject><subject>Urologic diseases</subject><subject>vesicoureteral reflux</subject><issn>2148-9580</issn><issn>2148-9580</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptkVtLAzEQhRdRULQ_QVjwuWvuyfpWijdUfNDiY8gmszalu6nJ7oP_3tSKF5B5yDCcOUzOVxSnGFWMSHa-GlP1atbQh1QRRFBFa6H2iiOCmZrWXKH9X_1hMUlphRDCkiosyVFxNyufwS57_zZC-bL0dlm-QPm0DOPalfPQJ-8glg8hwkUWdpsQTXwv5-NgeghjKhcRBoghDaF7PykOWrNOMPl6j4vF1eXz_GZ6_3h9O5_dTy2t8TBlgjNOGZOmEU4pxWSDHW8Ea2vuHHLWtQ1GwkjHMLRKCgGcWEsQOKl4Q-lxcbvzdcGs9Cb6Lt-kg_H6cxDiqzZx8HYN2lhCoLYWlKMsuzSKE4JqYVpEOEIke53tvDYx5AjSoFdhjH0-XxPOqBSUYPqj2iatfd-GIRrb-WT1TAiBERVMZVX1jyqXg87b0EPr8_zPAt8t2JxgitB-fwYjvaWrM139RVdv6eotXfoBmw6YhQ</recordid><startdate>20210601</startdate><enddate>20210601</enddate><creator>Citamak, Burak</creator><creator>Dogan, Hasan Serkan</creator><creator>Ceylan, Taner</creator><creator>Artykov, Meylis</creator><creator>Tekgul, Serdar</creator><general>Galenos Yayinevi Tic. Ltd</general><general>Galenos Publishing House</general><general>Galenos Yayinevi</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-459X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4044-1778</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8470-8246</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1145-7343</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7341-8753</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210601</creationdate><title>A Technique Which We Should Consider More: Temporary Cutaneous Ureterostomy</title><author>Citamak, Burak ; Dogan, Hasan Serkan ; Ceylan, Taner ; Artykov, Meylis ; Tekgul, Serdar</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-465453447ab6d88847b1d5b64f95dd0dcdfb106a7d41ef8766e52cc20ed785b33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Age</topic><topic>Bladder</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Catheters</topic><topic>cutaneous ureterostomy</topic><topic>hydronephrosis</topic><topic>megaureter</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Ostomy</topic><topic>Patient outcomes</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Ureterostomy</topic><topic>ureterovesical junction obstruction</topic><topic>urinary diversion</topic><topic>Urinary tract infections</topic><topic>Urologic diseases</topic><topic>vesicoureteral reflux</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Citamak, Burak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dogan, Hasan Serkan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ceylan, Taner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Artykov, Meylis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tekgul, Serdar</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Medical collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Journal of urological surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Citamak, Burak</au><au>Dogan, Hasan Serkan</au><au>Ceylan, Taner</au><au>Artykov, Meylis</au><au>Tekgul, Serdar</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Technique Which We Should Consider More: Temporary Cutaneous Ureterostomy</atitle><jtitle>Journal of urological surgery</jtitle><date>2021-06-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>118</spage><epage>122</epage><pages>118-122</pages><issn>2148-9580</issn><eissn>2148-9580</eissn><abstract>Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and complications of cutaneous ureterostomy (CU) in different indications. Materials and Methods: Data from 83 patients who underwent CU between 1991 and 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients with neurogenic bladder, posterior urethral valves, solitary kidney and bilateral kidney involvement were excluded. A total of 53 patients aged &lt;2 years were included in the analysis. Indications to perform CU were ureterovesical junction obstruction (UVJO) and high-grade vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) with dilatation. Ureteroureterostomy or ureteroneocystostomy methods were preferred for undiversion according to the dilatation status of the ureter. Results: The mean patient age was 4.47[+ or -]3.6 months, 40 (75.5%) were male and 13 (24.5%) were female. The mean follow-up time was 57.4[+ or -]41.4 (6-150) months. Loop and end CU were performed in 18 (34%) and 35 (66%) patients, respectively. The indications for CU were UVJO in 26 (49%) and high-grade VUR in 27 patients. Two (3.7%) patients needed dilatation because of stenosis that occurred after CU. Within the follow-up time, 39 patients underwent undiversion. The clinical improvement rate was 94.3%. Conclusion: CU is a simple method with satisfactory results when performed in patients with megaureter and massive dilatation. Despite the less frequent use, it is still an important alternative to the increasingly used conservative methods. Keywords: Cutaneous ureterostomy, urinary diversion, hydronephrosis, megaureter, vesicoureteral reflux, ureterovesical junction obstruction</abstract><cop>Ankara</cop><pub>Galenos Yayinevi Tic. Ltd</pub><doi>10.4274/jus.galenos.2020.3968</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-459X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4044-1778</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8470-8246</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1145-7343</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7341-8753</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2148-9580
ispartof Journal of urological surgery, 2021-06, Vol.8 (2), p.118-122
issn 2148-9580
2148-9580
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_ac22e9cce8d3452cb8522096af025002
source Publicly Available Content Database; EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Age
Bladder
Care and treatment
Catheters
cutaneous ureterostomy
hydronephrosis
megaureter
Methods
Ostomy
Patient outcomes
Patients
Surgery
Ureterostomy
ureterovesical junction obstruction
urinary diversion
Urinary tract infections
Urologic diseases
vesicoureteral reflux
title A Technique Which We Should Consider More: Temporary Cutaneous Ureterostomy
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T20%3A23%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Technique%20Which%20We%20Should%20Consider%20More:%20Temporary%20Cutaneous%20Ureterostomy&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20urological%20surgery&rft.au=Citamak,%20Burak&rft.date=2021-06-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=118&rft.epage=122&rft.pages=118-122&rft.issn=2148-9580&rft.eissn=2148-9580&rft_id=info:doi/10.4274/jus.galenos.2020.3968&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA666103648%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-465453447ab6d88847b1d5b64f95dd0dcdfb106a7d41ef8766e52cc20ed785b33%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2543763213&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A666103648&rfr_iscdi=true