Clinical analysis of percutaneous kidney-sparing surgery for upper tract urothelial carcinoma
Rattachement africain : cn. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVE: To analyze and summarize the clinical and pathological characteristics and prognosis of percutaneous kidney-sparing surgery (PCKSS) for the treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data and oncological characteristics of 16 cases of UTUC with PCKSS admitted to the Urology Department of Peking University Third Hospital from July 2015 to December 2023, and postoperative follow-up was conducted on the patients. All cases were discussed at a multi-disciplinary treatment group and underwent PCKSS by the same surgeon. RESULTS: As a result, all 16 cases of PCKSS surgery were successfully completed, with 3 cases having multiple tumors. The median surgical time is 150 (75–216) minutes, and the median intraoperative bleeding volume is 150 (20–800) ml. Postoperative pathological diagnosis showed 11 cases of high-grade urothelial carcinoma and 10 cases in pTa. The average postoperative hospitalization time is 7.2 ± 2.2 days. During a median follow-up of 22 (2–93) months, 7 cases of recurrence and 2 cases of death due to tumors. CONCLUSION: PCKSS is a minimally invasive surgical method for the treatment of UTUC, which avoids serious complications caused by radical surgery. However, it is necessary to carefully select suitable patients before surgery, and strict and regular follow-up is required after surgery.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Clinical analysis of percutaneous kidney-sparing surgery for upper tract urothelial carcinoma
- Date Crossref
- 25/11/2025
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.