A Multicenter Clinical Trial Investigating the Use of a Fluoroscopically Controlled Cutting Balloon Catheter for the Management of Ureteral and Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction

摘要

No AccessJournal of UrologyClinical Urology: Original Article1 May 1997A Multicenter Clinical Trial Investigating the Use of a Fluoroscopically Controlled Cutting Balloon Catheter for the Management of Ureteral and Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction Glenn M. Preminger, Ralph V. Clayman, Stephen Y. Nakada, Richard K. Babayan, David M. Albala, Gerhard J. Fuchs, and Arthur D. Smith Glenn M. PremingerGlenn M. Preminger , Ralph V. ClaymanRalph V. Clayman , Stephen Y. NakadaStephen Y. Nakada , Richard K. BabayanRichard K. Babayan , David M. AlbalaDavid M. Albala , Gerhard J. FuchsGerhard J. Fuchs , and Arthur D. SmithArthur D. Smith View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64813-4AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We assessed the efficacy of a fluoroscopically controlled cutting balloon catheter for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction and ureteral strictures. Materials and Methods: A multicenter trial was performed that included66 endopyelotomies and 49 endoureterotomies. To our knowledge this study represents the largest number of patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction and ureteral strictures tested with this device to date. Results: With a mean followup of 7.8 months (range 1 to 17.9) the patency rate was 77% for endopyelotomy, with 72% of the primary and 100% of the secondary ureteropelvic junction obstructions remaining patent. The endoureterotomy patients were followed for an average of 8.7 months (range 1.2 to 17.0), with a patency rate of 55%. Conclusions: A cutting balloon endoscopic incision is effective in the majority of cases, with patency rates for endopyelotomies and endoureterotomies that mirror current endourological reports using other, albeit more time intensive and more invasive, incisional techniques. References 1 : Percutaneous surgery for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (endopyelotomy): technique and early results. J. Urol.1986; 135: 26. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Long-term efficacy of retrograde ureteroscopic endopyelotomy. J. Urol., part 21993; 149: 276A. abstract 249. Google Scholar 3 : Ureteronephroscopic endopyelotomy. J. Urol.1990; 144: 246. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Endosurgical techniques for the diagnosis and treatment of noncalculous disease of the ureter and kidney. In: . Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.1992: 2231. chapt. 62. Google Scholar 5 : Endopyelotomy: patient selection, results, and complications. Urology1994; 43: 2. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 6 : Results of 212 consecutive endopyelotomies: an 8-year follow-up. J. Urol.1993; 149: 453. Link, Google Scholar 7 : Endopyelotomy: comparison of ureteroscopic retrograde and antegrade percutaneous techniques. J. Urol.1992; 148: 775. Link, Google Scholar 8 : Endopyelotomy and endoureterotomy with the Acucise ureteral cutting balloon device: preliminary experience. J. Endourol.1993; 7: 45. Google Scholar 9 : Acucise endopyelotomy: assessment of long-term durability. J. Urol.1996; 156: 1094. Link, Google Scholar 10 : Long-term follow-up of Acucise incision of ureteropelvic junction obstruction and ureteral strictures. Urology1996; 47: 317. Google Scholar 11 : Endopyelotomy in the elderly. J. Urol.1993; 150: 1107. Abstract, Google Scholar 12 : Complications of endopyelotomy: analysis in series of 64 patients. J. Urol.1988; 140: 473. Link, Google Scholar 13 : Long-term results and late recurrence after endoureteropyelotomy: a critical analysis of prognostic factors. J. Urol.1994; 151: 934. Link, Google Scholar 14 : Evaluation of optimal stent size after endourologic incision of ureteral strictures. (Preliminary Report). J. Urol., part 21994; 151: 338A. abstract 442. Google Scholar 15 : Percutaneous antegrade endoscopic pyelotomy: review of 50 consecutive cases. J. Urol.1995; 153: 701. Link, Google Scholar From the Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, Washington University School of Med