OBJECTIVE: In the present study we have applied virtual endoscopy (VE) in patients with ureteral metallic stents as a follow-up tool study especially in the need to define ureteral patency. METHODS: We performed the suggested technique in 6 patients with malignant ureteral obstruction treated successfully by placement of Wallstent intraureteral metallic stents, and correlated the results with antegrade nephrostomography 48 hours after initial stent placement. RESULTS: In 2 patients restenosis was observed, and in the remaining 4 patients the stented ureters remained patent during the follow up evaluation. VE and antegrade nephrostomography, were concurrent as to their findings. Moreover, VE proceeds beyond the stenotic segment, allowing visualization of the ureteral lumen both cephalad and caudal to the point of obstruction. CONCLUSION: VE is providing indeed a more accurate, direct and dynamic approach in the evaluation of a strictured ureteral lumen within the metallic stent.
OBJECTIVE: In the present study we have applied virtual endoscopy (VE) in patients with ureteral metallic stents as a follow-up tool study especially in the need to define ureteral patency. METHODS: We performed the suggested technique in 6 patients with malignant ureteral obstruction treated successfully by placement of Wallstent intraureteral metallic stents, and correlated the results with antegrade nephrostomography 48 hours after initial stent placement. RESULTS: In 2 patientsrestenosis was observed, and in the remaining 4 patients the stented ureters remained patent during the follow up evaluation. VE and antegrade nephrostomography, were concurrent as to their findings. Moreover, VE proceeds beyond the stenotic segment, allowing visualization of the ureteral lumen both cephalad and caudal to the point of obstruction. CONCLUSION: VE is providing indeed a more accurate, direct and dynamic approach in the evaluation of a strictured ureteral lumen within the metallic stent.
Authors: J H Song; I R Francis; J F Platt; R H Cohan; J Mohsin; S J Kielb; M Korobkin; J E Montie Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: G A Barbalias; D Siablis; E N Liatsikos; D Karnabatidis; S Yarmenitis; K Bouropoulos; J Dimopoulos Journal: J Urol Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: E M Merkle; A Wunderlich; A J Aschoff; N Rilinger; J Görich; R Bachor; H W Gottfried; R Sokiranski; T R Fleiter; H J Brambs Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 3.039