Marianne Brehmer
Karolinska University Hospital
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Marianne Brehmer.
European Urology | 1994
Jan Adolfsson; Marianne Brehmer; Erik Näslund; Lars Johansson; Peter Ekman; Lennart Andersson
Thirty-seven patients with clinically localized prostate cancer of all grades were treated by suprapubic digitally guided implantation of 125I seeds. The median age at the time of diagnosis was 68 years. The mean follow-up period was 62 +/- 19 months. At last follow-up 18 patients were clinically free of disease; 11 deaths occurred: 9 from prostate cancer and 2 from another disease. Complications occurred in 24 patients most commonly urgency and proctitis, attributable to the treatment. Four patients had severe late rectal complications, and 2 patients died of sepsis secondary to rectal fistulae. Digitally directed retropubic implantation of 125I appears inferior to other treatments of clinically confined prostate cancer both regarding outcome as well as complication rate.
Journal of Endourology | 2015
T Tefik; Christian Seitz; Marianne Brehmer; Palle Jørn Sloth Osther; Guido Giusti; R Rassweiler; Michael Grasso; Glenn M. Preminger; Margaret S. Pearle; T Traxer
MP01-01 METABOLIC SHIFT AND MTDNA COPY NUMBER CHANGE IN HUMAN RENAL CELL CARCINOMA Chen-Sung Lin, Siao-Cian Pan, Yau-Huei Wei, Allen Wen-Hsiang Chiu Faculty of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University (Taiwan) Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, National Yang-Ming University (Taiwan) Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare (Taiwan) Department of Urology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital (Taiwan) Department of Medicine, Mackay Medical College (Taiwan)
The Journal of Urology | 2011
Alberto Breda; Francesco Sanguedolce; C. Scoffone; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Evangelos Liatsikos; Raimundas Sabockis; Marianne Brehmer; Jan Jessen; Thomas Knoll; Matthias Franke; Palle Jørn Sloth Osther; Olivier Traxer; Thomas Hermann; Axel S. Merseburger; Udo Nagele; Felix Millán
Introduction Lower pole kidney stones represent at time a challenge for the urologist. The gold standard treatment for intrarenal stones 2 cm is Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The success rate of ESWL, however, decreases when it is employed for lower pole stones, and this is particularly true in the presence of narrow calices or acute infundibular angles. Studies have proved that ureteroscopy (URS) is an efficacious alternative to ESWL for lower pole stones <2 cm, but this is not reflected by either the European or the American guidelines. The aim of this study is to present the results of a large series of flexible ureteroscopies and PCNLs for lower pole kidney stones from high-volume centers, in order to provide more evidences on the potential indications of the flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of kidney stones. Materials and Methods A database was created and the participating centres retrospectively entered their data relating to the percutaneous and flexible ureteroscopic management of lower pole kidney stones. Patients included were treated between January 2005 and January 2010. Variables analyzed included case load number, preoperative and postoperative imaging, stone burden, anaesthesia (general vs. spinal), type of lithotripter, access location and size, access dilation type, ureteral access sheath use, visual clarity, operative time, stone-free rate, complication rate, hospital stay, analgesic requirement and follow-up time. Stone-free rate was defined as absence of residual fragments or presence of a single fragment <2 mm in size at follow-up imaging. Primary end-point was to test the efficacy and safety of flexible URS for the treatment of lower pole stones; the same descriptive analysis was conducted for the PCNL approach, as considered the gold standard for the treatment of lower pole kidney stones. In this setting, no statistical analysis was conducted owing to the different selection criteria of the patients. Secondary end-point consisted in matching the results of stone-free rates, operative time and complications rate of flexible URS and PCNL in the subgroup of patients harbouring lower pole kidney stones between 1 and 2 cm in the higher diameter. Results A total 246 patients met the criteria for inclusion. There were 117 PCNLs (group 1) and 129 flexible URS (group 2). Ninety-six percent of cases were diagnosed by CT KUB scan. Mean stone burden was 175±160 and 50±62 mm2 for groups 1 and 2, respectively. General anaesthesia was induced in 100 % and 80% of groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pneumo-ultrasonic energy was used in 84% of cases in the PCNL group, and holmium laser in 95% of the cases in the flexible URS group. The mean operative time was 76.9±44 and 63±37 minutes for groups 1 and 2 respectively. There were 12 major complications (11%) in group 1 (mainly Grade II complications according to Clavidien classification) and no major complications in group 2. Mean hospital stay was 5.7 and 2.6 days for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Ninety-five percent of group 1 and 52% of group 2 required analgesia for a period longer than 24 hours. Intraoperative stone-free rate after a single treatment was 88.9% for group 1 and 79.1% for group 2. Overall, 6% of group 1 and 14.7% of group 2 required a second look procedure. At 3 months, stone-free rates were 90.6% and 92.2% for groups 1 and 2, respectively, as documented by follow-up CT KUB (22%) or combination of intra-venous pyelogram, regular KUB and/or kidney ultrasound (78%). In the subanalysis conducted comparing 82 vs 65 patients who underwent PCNL and flexible URS for lower pole stones between 1 and 2 cm, intreoperative stone-free rates were 88% vs 68% (p= 0.03), respectively; anyway, after an auxiliary procedure which was necessary in 6% of the cases in group 1 and 23% in group 2 (p=0.03), stone-free rates at 3 months were not statistically significant (91.5% vs 89.2%; p=0.6). Conversely, the patients undergoing PCNL maintained a higher risk of complications during the procedure, with 9 cases observed in this group versus 0 in the group of patients treated with URS (p=0.01) Conclusions These data highlight the value of flexible URS as a very effective and safe option for the treatment of kidney stones; thanks to the latest generation of flexible devices, this new technical approach seems to be a valid alternative in particular for the treatment of lower pole kidney stones less than 2 cm. In high-volume centres and in the hands of skilled surgeons, this technique can approach the stone-free rates achievable through PCNL in lower pole stones between 1 and 2 cm, with a very low risk of complications. Furthermore, the results confirm the high success rate and relatively low morbidity of modern PCNL for lower pole stones, with no difference detectable between the prone and supine position.
European Urology | 2005
Marianne Brehmer; Robert Swartz
World Journal of Urology | 2013
F. Sanguedolce; A. Breda; Felix Millán; Marianne Brehmer; Thomas Knoll; Evangelos Liatsikos; Palle Jørn Sloth Osther; O. Traxer; C. Scoffone
The Journal of Urology | 2011
Francesco Sanguedolce; Cecilia Maria Cracco; Susanna Grande; C. Scoffone; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Evangelos Liatsikos; Raimundas Sabockis; Marianne Brehmer; Jan Jessen; Thomas Knoll; Matthias Franke; Palle Jørn Sloth Osther; Olivier Traxer; Thomas Hermann; Axel S. Merseburger; Udo Nagele; Felix Millán; Alberto Breda
The Journal of Urology | 2015
Jan Jessen; Alberto Breda; Marianne Brehmer; Evangelos Liatsikos; Felix Millan Rodriguez; Palle Jørn Sloth Osther; C. Scoffone; Thomas Knoll
Urologe. Section A | 2011
Thomas Knoll; Jan Jessen; Marianne Brehmer; Evangelos Liatsikos; Palle Jørn Sloth Osther; C. Scoffone; O. Traxer; A. Breda
American Association of Urology, annual meeting 14-19 May 2011 | 2011
Francesco Sanquedolce; Cecilia Maria Cracco; Susanne Grande; C. Scoffone; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Evangelos Liatsikos; Raimundas Sabockis; Marianne Brehmer; Jan Jessen; Thomas Knoll; Matthias Franke; Palle Jørn Sloth Osther; Olivier Traxer; Thomas Hermann; Axel S. Merseburger; Udo Nagele; Felix Millain; Alberto Breda
63. Kongress der Deutschen Desellschaft für Urologie | 2011
Thomas Knoll; Jan Jessen; Marianne Brehmer; Evangelos Liatsikos; Palle Jørn Sloth Osther; C. Scoffone; O. Traxer; A. Breda