A comparative evaluation of 3 kinds of cecocolon urinary reservoir
- VernacularTitle:三种可控性结肠贮尿囊的效果比较
- Author:
Xinnan ZHANG
;
Gang XU
;
Jingwei JI
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Urinary diversion;
Urodynamics
- From:
Chinese Journal of Urology
1994;0(02):-
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
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 (P0.05).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.
