Repeat revascularization versus nephrectomy in the treatment of recurrent XXXX .

@entity1 @entity101 @entity2792 @entity2791 @entity204
Between 1960 and 1983, 38 @entity1 underwent multiple operations for treatment of recurrent @entity2792 . There were 23 @entity1 and 15 @entity1 who ranged in age from eight to 69 years old (a mean of 48.5 years). The cause of @entity101 requiring repeat operation was determined roentgenographically, three @entity1 had new disease of the contralateral nonoperated renal artery, 21 @entity1 had a new lesion of the ipsilateral (previously operated) renal artery and 14 @entity1 had new lesions of both the previously operated and nonoperated renal arteries. Thirty @entity1 underwent a secondary unilateral operation and eight had a bilateral operation. Sixteen @entity1 had unilateral renal artery revascularization, 14 had unilateral nephrectomy, three had bilateral revascularization and five had unilateral revascularization with contralateral nephrectomy. There were three operative @entity204 (an operative mortality of 7.9 per cent). At hospital dismissal, 30 of 35 @entity1 were improved. Follow-up study ranged from seven months to 23 years (a mean of 7.2 years). There were eight (22.9 per cent) late @entity204 . Secondary revascularization alone produced improvement in 77 per cent. Nephrectomy alone produced improvement in 80 per cent. We conclude that secondary revascularization is the treatment of choice in @entity1 with recurrent @entity2791 . Nephrectomy should be reserved for @entity1 who cannot undergo a revascularization procedure for technical or medical reasons.
