ArticleUrology annals
Outcome analysis of percutaneous nephrostomy insertion to relieve urinary obstruction in advanced malignancy.
Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Evolving paradigms in endourology - Toward precision, patient-centeredness, and sustainability.Urology annalsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim is to evaluate the benefits of percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) for urinary drainage in patients with malignancy-associated urinary obstruction (MUO). This study examines the impact of PCN on immediate renal recovery, procedural morbidity, short-term outcomes, and patient survival. Methods: A total of 477 patients with ureteric obstruction underwent PCN placement, of whom one-third had MUO. Demographic and clinical parameters were reviewed to assess renal outcomes, complication rates, hospital stay, and overall survival. Results: Nearly two-thirds of the patients with MUO had a primary urological malignancy (bladder cancer 30% and prostate cancer 25%). The mean hospital stay was <7 weeks, with patients with gynecological malignancies experiencing the shortest admissions. During the study period, 59 (37%) patients died. The overall median survival was 107 weeks, with the shortest survival observed in patients with primary colorectal cancer (median 34 weeks). Patients with primary bladder and prostate malignancies demonstrated higher median survival compared to other malignancies. Conclusion: MUO often represents advanced disease in colorectal and gynecological cancers. PCN can be beneficial for selected patients who are candidates for further oncological treatment. However, it should be considered only after careful discussion regarding the potential need for long-term nephrostomy, procedural morbidity, and quality-of-life impact. Although PCN achieved high rates of renal function recovery and had low complication rates (12%-17%), the underlying malignancy and associated social factors contributed to prolonged hospital stays, sometimes accounting for up to one-third of a patient's remaining life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.