The influence of interstitial cells of Cajal density in the outcomes of pyeloplasty in adults: A prospective analysis
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
0
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
Autores
BANDEIRA, Rodolfo Anisio Santana de Torres
Citação
UROLOGIA JOURNAL, v.90, n.1, p.30-35, 2023
Resumo
Purpose: To evaluate if the density of interstitial cells of Cajal (ICC) in the ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) influences the outcomes of pyeloplasty in adults. Methods: Twenty-three patients with the diagnosis of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) that underwent laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty were included. ICC density was measured using immunohistochemistry reaction for c-KIT expression in the resected UPJ segment. Pyeloplasty outcome was evaluated by patient self-report pain, urinary outflow using DTPA renogram and hydronephrosis assessment using ultrasound (US) at 12 months of follow-up. A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the association of pyeloplasty outcomes and ICC density. Results: Low, moderate, and high ICC density were present in 17.4%, 30.4%, and 52.2% of the patients, respectively. Complete pain resolution was observed in 100%, 85.7%, and 75% of patients with low, moderate and high ICC density, respectively (p = 0.791). DTPA renogram improved in 75%, 85.7%, and 91.7% of patients with low, moderate and high ICC density, respectively (p = 0.739). Hydronephrosis improved in 25%, 85.7%, and 91.7% of patients with low, moderate and high ICC density, respectively (p = 0.032). Conclusions: Patients with high ICC density have a significant amelioration of hydronephrosis after pyeloplasty. However, ICC density is not associated with functional outcomes.
Palavras-chave
Interstitial cells of Cajal, pyeloplasty, ureteropelvic obstruction, outcomes, laparoscopic
Referências
- Al-Shboul OA, 2013, SAUDI J GASTROENTERO, V19, P3, DOI 10.4103/1319-3767.105909
- Arap MA, 2013, SCAND J UROL, V47, P323, DOI 10.3109/00365599.2012.740071
- Balikci O, 2015, INT BRAZ J UROL, V41, P1178, DOI 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.0427
- Brading AF, 2005, NAT CLIN PRACT UROL, V2, P546, DOI 10.1038/ncpuro0340
- Cajal SR., 1893, C R SOC BIOL PARIS, V5, P217
- Carr M., 2012, CAMPBELL WALSH UROLO, P94
- Cost NG, 2010, UROLOGY, V76, P175, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2009.09.092
- David SG, 2005, J UROLOGY, V173, P292, DOI 10.1097/01.ju.0000141594.99139.3d
- Di Benedetto A, 2013, NEUROUROL URODYNAM, V32, P349, DOI 10.1002/nau.22310
- Eden CG, 2001, BJU INT, V88, P526, DOI 10.1046/j.1464-4096.2001.02382.x
- Huizinga JD, 2009, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V137, P1548, DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.09.023
- Klemm MF, 1999, J PHYSIOL-LONDON, V519, P867, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7793.1999.0867n.x
- Kojima Y, 2011, J UROLOGY, V185, P1461, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.048
- Koleda P, 2012, INT UROL NEPHROL, V44, P7, DOI 10.1007/s11255-011-9970-5
- Kuzgunbay B, 2009, J PEDIATR UROL, V5, P269, DOI 10.1016/j.jpurol.2008.12.006
- Mehrazma M, 2014, IRAN J PEDIATR, V24, P105
- Metzger R, 2004, J UROLOGY, V172, P769, DOI 10.1097/01.ju.0000130571.15243.59
- Nerli RB, 2009, J PEDIATR UROL, V5, P147, DOI 10.1016/j.jpurol.2008.09.009
- Noble VE, 2004, EMERG MED CLIN N AM, V22, P641, DOI 10.1016/j.emc.2004.04.014
- Ozayar A, 2015, J UROLOGY, V193, P1278, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.100
- Rehman J, 2001, J UROLOGY, V166, P593, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65990-3
- Richstone L, 2009, UROLOGY, V73, P716, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2008.10.069
- Romao RLP, 2012, J UROLOGY, V188, P2347, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.036
- Senol C, 2016, J PEDIATR UROL, V12, DOI 10.1016/j.jpurol.2015.08.010
- Solari V, 2003, J UROLOGY, V170, P2420, DOI 10.1097/01.ju.0000097401.03293.f0
- Woodward M, 2002, BJU INT, V89, P149, DOI 10.1046/j.1464-4096.2001.woodward.2578.x
- Yiee JH, 2010, UROLOGY, V76, P181, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2010.02.007