Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Nephrol. Nov 25, 2022; 11(6): 146-163
Published online Nov 25, 2022. doi: 10.5527/wjn.v11.i6.146
Table 1 Summary of studies of reporting drainage of bilaterally obstructed kidneys due to malignant ureteral obstruction during the period of 2000-2022
Study
Patients
Underlying pathology
Drainage
Outcomes
Ref.TypeNumberAge mean ± SD or median (range) in yrMale/femaleNature of obstructionPrimary site (IC and EC); Type of malignancyTool/ApproachUnilateral/bilateralTechnical success rateOverall patient survival time and survival ratePreference/conclusion/recommendation
Pappas et al[9], 2000Retrospective, comparative15965.1 (18.0-94.0)102/57BUO (30), MUO (125), and unknown (4)IC: bladder and prostatic (NA)PCN vs JJ149/1099% for PCN227 dPCN is safe and effective
81% for JJMean SCr improved from 6.9 mg/dL to 2.2 mg/dL
EC: GIT and Gyn (NA)
Ekici et al[10], 2001Retrospective series2355 (25–76)21/2MUOIC: bladder only (23)PCNNA100%4.9 moPCN is safe to avoid uremia
Chitale et al[11], 2002Retrospective cohort65NA (53–84) 52/13MUOIC: bladder (30) and prostatic (28)Retrograde (24) vs PCN/antegrade JJ (41)NAPCN: 100%1-yr survival rate was 54.8%Two-stage antegrade JJ was preferred
JJ: 21%/98.3%
EC: cervical (4) and rectal (3)
Chung et al[12], 2004Retrospective cohort10161.4 (33.0–90.0)44/57BUO (11) and MUO (90)IC: renal (2), bladder (2) and prostatic (5)JJ65/3695%NA40.6% JJ failure at 11 mo; in 50% was due to compression
EC: GIT (35), uterine (8), ovarian (5), pancreatic (2), lymphoma (12), breast (13) and other (6)
Ku et al[13], 2004Retrospective, comparative148 57.3 (20.0-84.0)68/80MUOEC: NAPCN (80)/JJ (68)108/4098.7%/89.0%NAPCN is superior to achieve decompression
Danilovic et al[14], 2005Retrospective cohort4350.8 (25.0-84.0)16/27MUO (25) and BUOIC (7): ureteral (1), bladder (1) and prostatic (4)JJ initially; if failed, PCN was placed39/49% (for IC)/53% (for EC)NAPCN might be better for patients with EC
EC (36): uterine (9), ovarian (2), colorectal (4), and other (3)
Ganatra et al[15], 2005Retrospective cohort15754.7 (23.0-83.0)NAMUOIC: bladder (2)PCN (24)/JJ (133)NA64.3%11-mo survival rate was 75.8%Bladder invasion predicts failure of JJ placement
EC: ovarian (26), cervical (16), GIT (32), breast (8), testicular (6) and others (68)
Romero et al[16], 2005Retrospective cohort4352 (22-88)14/29MUOIC: bladder (10) and prostate (5)PCNNA100%Mean 12-mo survival rate was 24.2%PCN drainage is better for those <52 yr
EC: cervical (23), ovary (7), and vulva (2)
Rosenberg et al[17], 2005Retrospective, comparative2851 (21-78)1/27MUOIC: noneRetrograde JJ; PCN alternativeNA92%15.3 mo; 14 patients died from malignancy during studyJJ is recommended to avoid dialysis
EC: uterine (14), ovarian (4), GIT (9) and breast (1)
Mean SCr improved from 2.9 mg/dL to 1.2 mg/dL
Uthappa et al[18], 2005Retrospective cohort3061.4 (29.0-90.0)19/11MUOIC: renal (2), ureteral (1), bladder (5), and prostatic (5)Retrograde JJ; antegrade JJ was alternative10/2050%NARetrograde JJ initial method
EC: ovarian (4), uterine (5), rectal (3), testicular (1), GIT (2), and breast (2)
Wilson et al[19], 2005Retrospective cohort3268.1 (24.0-84.0)16/16MUOIC: bladder (8) and prostatic (9)PCN; JJ was a second step in 32 patients12/20100%87 dPCN is best initially and recommended when there is a definitive plan for treatment
EC: Gynecological (7), colorectal (7), and breast (1)
Radecka et al[20], 2006Retrospective cohort15173.1 (51.0-97.0)112/39MUOIC: renal (4), ureteral (7), bladder (43), and prostatic (55)PCN45/106NA255 d; 80% died with PCNPCN for safety and cost
EC: Gyn (11), colorectal (16), and others (15)
Kano et al[21], 2007Retrospective, comparative75 62.7 (36.0-90.0)30/45MUOIC: bladder (4) and prostate (11)PCN (24)/JJ (51)NA100/72.5; only 78.4% of those started with JJ completed5.9 mo and 5.6 mo for PCN and JJ, respectivelyInitial trial of JJ without side holes, PCN is alternative
EC: uterine (25), GIT (28), ovarian (4), retroperitoneal (2), and lymphoma (1)
1Rosevear et al[22], 2007Retrospective cohort5461 (32-82)27/27BUO and MUO IC: prostatic (5)Retrograde JJ21/3381Mean 16 moRetrograde JJ considered first line for MUO due to EC
EC: GIT (18), lymphoma (15), ovarian (50), uterine (6), and others (4)
Wong et al[23], 2007Retrospective cohort10262 (31-86)45/57MUOIC (30): bladder and prostaticPCN/Retrograde JJ77/2594%; 99% and 84% for PCN and JJ, respectively6.8 mo; 12 mo rate was 29%Prognostic factors; PCN, metastases, and MUO diagnosis in established malignancy
EC: Gyn (32), GIT (21), lymphoma (5), and other (14)
Ishioka et al[24], 2008Retrospective cohort14057 (31-85)60/80MUOIC: urothelial (13)PCN138/2100%96 d; 12-mo rate was 12%Risk stratification of patients relative to 1-3 risk factors
EC: gastric (29), colorectal (34), ovarian (6), cervical (30) and other (23)
Mean SCr improved from 4.33 mg/dL to 1.39 mg/dL
McCullough et al[25], 2008Retrospective comparative5769.5 (40.0-91.0)31/26MUOIC: bladder (12) and prostatic (20)Retrograde JJ; PCN alternativeNA54%SCr improved by 50% immediately after drainageSCr level at presentation can predict success of retrograde JJ
EC: Gyn (8), colorectal (7), lymphoma (2), and others (8)
Lienert et al[26], 2009Retrospective cohort 4971 (36-91)27/22MUOIC: bladder (18) and prostatic (15)PCN38/11100%174 d; 53% (prostatic) and 82% (non-prostatic) patients died during studyRisk stratification of patients; relative risk factors to validate the prognostic model of Ishioka et al[24]
EC: colorectal (6), Gyn (5), sarcoma (2), pancreatic (2), and breast (1)
Mishra et al[27], 2009Retrospective, comparative1544.5 (30.0-65.0)0/15MUOEC: cervical (15)PCN; JJ alternative1/14100%NABilateral temporary PCN helps receive definitive or specific therapy and avoid dialysis
Mean SCr improved from 7.5 mg/dL to 0.9 mg/dL within 1-3 wk
Nariculam et al[28], 2009Retrospective, comparative2571 (51-85)25/0MUOIC: prostatic onlyPCN7/18100%7.5-moUnilateral and bilateral PCN drainage were similar
Mean SCr improved from 612 µmoL to 187 µmoL within 14 d
Jalbani et al[29], 2010Prospective cohort40NA (21-70)20/20MUOIC: bladder (10) and prostatic (5)PCN20/20100%350 d for IC and 25 d for ECPCN excellent initial intervention
EC: cervical (15), ovarian (2), rectal (3), gall bladder (1), breast (1), and lymphoma (3)Mean SCr normalized in 62.5%
Kamiyama et al[30], 2011Retrospective cohort5361 (32-92)22/31MUOIC: prostatic (3)JJ as initial tool20/3395.3%Drainage success 66%Proposed algorithm of drainage based on primary site, performance status, and degree of hydronephrosis
EC: GIT (31), Gyn (13), breast (3), and lymphoma (3)
Migita et al[31], 2011Retrospective series25 61 (29-76)13/12MUOEC: gastric (25)Retrograde JJ (15); PCN alternative (5) 4/2180%/100%5.8 mo; 1-yr survival rate was 32%Initial trial should be with JJ
Prognosis is usually poor; urinary diversion should be tailored per patient
Song et al[32], 2012Retrospective, comparative7557.1 (20.0-85.0)0/75MUOEC: uterine (26), cervical (26), ovarian (20), and other (3)Retrograde JJ; PCN alternative66/981.3%; for PCN 100%9.1 moRetrograde JJ first-line option; with serum cystatin C > 2.5 and obstruction length > 3 cm, PCN is alternative
Misra et al[33], 2013Retrospective, case series2275.1 (54-87)20/2MUOIC: bladder (6) and prostate (12)PCN; Antegrade JJ second step in 10 patients11/11100%/77% 78 dPCN is effective but with significant morbidity and not prolonging life; decision of drainage made after full discussion
EC: Gyn (2) and rectal (2)
Cordeiro et al[34], 2016Prospective cohort20861 (19-89)101/107MUOIC: bladder (47) and prostatic (25)Initial retrograde JJ (58); PCN as alternative (150) 107/10127.9%/100%144 d; 1-yr survival rate was 44.9% and 7.1% for favorable and unfavorable groups, respectivelyRisk stratification model with three groups to determine usefulness of urinary diversion; favorable, intermediate, and unfavorable
EC: cervical/uterine (51), ovarian (10), colorectal (45), and other (30)
Efesoy et al[35], 2018Retrospective series36243.2203/159BUO and MUO (151)IC: bladder (31) and prostatic (43)Ultrasound-guided PCN; Seldinger or direct puncture techniques293/6196.1%NAUltrasound-guided PCN is recommended procedure
EC: cervical (57), uterine (6), ovarian (5), and rectal (9)
Tan et al[36], 2019Retrospective, comparative8950.3 (25.0-78.0)0/89MUOEC: cervical (89)Retrograde JJ; PCN alternative67/2277.5%/100%100%No differences between JJ and PCN outcomes
Drainage using JJ is preferred generally, but PCN is better in patients with severe hydronephrosis and long-segment ureteral obstruction (> 3 cm)
Tibana et al[37], 2019Retrospective, comparative4165.6 ± 9.523/18MUOIC: bladder (12) and prostatic (9)PCN; Antegrade JJ10/16NANAAntegrade JJ is alternative to PCN and retrograde JJ; clinical improvement in 97.5%
EC: uterine (11), ovarian (1), colorectal (7), and retroperitoneal (1)
2Haas et al[8], 2020Retrospective database study23852865.5 ± 14.647.6%/52.4%MUOIC: bladder (9.8%), prostatic (17.9%), and other (4.2%)Retrograde JJ (18%)/PCN (11.4%)NANADeath in hospital rate was 7.3%There was a substantial variation in approaching MUO with temporal decline in use of JJ but steady use of PCN with higher use in metastatic cases
EC: GIT (24.3%), Gyn (20.8%), lymphoma (10.3%), and other (15%)
Patients with urologic malignancies were older
De Lorenzis et al[38], 2020Retrospective, comparative5170 (58-76)20/31MUOEC only: colonic (28), rectal (14), gastric (5), pancreatic (3), and appendicular (1)Retrograde JJ; PCN30/2180.4%/ 100%10.5 mo; survival rate was 15.7%GIT cancers causing MUO were associated with poor prognosis
Folkard et al[39], 2020Retrospective multicenter series10568.8 (30.0-93.0)55/50MUOIC (54): bladder and prostaticPCN; Antegrade JJ second step in 62%46%/54%100%139 d; 4-yr survival rate was 24.8%. Only 30.5% underwent further oncological treatmentMean SCr improved from 348 µmmol/L to 170 µmmol/L
EC (51): Gyn, colorectal, and other
Izumi et al[40], 2021Prospective multicenter comparative30068 (25-96)126/174MUOIC: bladder (19), ureter (13), prostatic (12), and other (6)PCN (44)/JJ (217)161/139NAMedian survival times (1-yr survival rate) of the good, intermediate, and poor risk groups were 406 (54.4%), 221 (32.7%), and 77 (8%) d, respectivelyRisk stratification proposed based on primary site of malignancy, laterality of MUO, SCr level, and treatment for primary site (PLaCT); Good, intermediate and poor risk groups
EC: Gyn (66), GIT (121), lymphoma (26), and other (37)
Gadelkareem et al[5], 2022Prospective, non-randomized10756.668/39BUO (53) and MUO (54)IC: bladder (30) and prostatic (5)PCN (79) and JJ (28)57/5098.3%/96.6%NAPCN is more suitable to MUO
EC: colorectal (11), cervical (6), and lymphoma (2)Mean SCr improved from 6.1 mg/dL to 1.2 mg/dL
Kbirou et al[41], 2022Retrospective cohort10260 (36-84)0/102MUOEC: cervical (95), uterine (5), and ovarian (2)PCN (94)/JJ (8)NA100%NA; 88% of patients had normalized kidney functionPCN is the main tool of drainage
Early diagnosis may enable prevention of MUO
Pickersgill et al[42], 2022Retrospective cohort78NANAMUOECJJ; PCN alternativeNAMedian (range) of JJ exchange was 2 (0–17)19.9 moJJ failure was high, warranting early use of PCN in management of MUO