三种可控性结肠贮尿囊的效果比较

A comparative evaluation of 3 kinds of cecocolon urinary reservoir

目的 寻求理想的可控性尿流改道术式。 方法 3 7例患者 ,采用去带盲升结肠贮尿囊者 13例 ,采用penn贮尿囊者 11例 ,采用改良Indiana贮尿囊者 13例。其中 3 5例行尿动力学检查 ,对不同贮尿囊的容量和压力结果进行比较。 结果 去带盲升结肠尿囊组 3个月时的容量和压力与另 2组贮尿囊的结果比较差异有非常显著性意义 (P <0 .0 1) ,3种贮尿囊的容量、囊内压均可随时间的推移得到改善 ,术后 12个月时其容量之间的差异无显著性意义 (P >0 .0 5 )。Penn贮尿囊能有效降低收缩压。阑尾作输出道者均可获得良好的尿控。 结论 Penn贮尿囊和改良Indiana贮尿囊是较理想的可控性尿流改道术式 。

Objective To evaluate and compare 3 kinds of cecocolon urinary reservoir. Methods Penn pouch,indiana pouch or detenial cecocolon reservoir has been performed for 37 patients.The out-come was evaluated by urodynamic and clinically. Results Good continence has been achieved in all patients with an appendiceal continence mechanism.The capacity and intrareservoir pressure of detenial cecocolon was significantly different from penn or indiana pouch 3 months postoperatively (P<0.01) whereas the difference became in no significant 12 months postoperatively (P>0.05).The intrareservoir pressure on contraction was lower with penn pouch. Conclusions The penn or modified indiana pouch is better and more ideal as an urinary reservoir whereas the detenial cecocolon pouch is technically simpler.