SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.61 issue2The treatment of vesicoureteral refluxModification of the sting procedure for vesicoureteral reflux: ureteral repositioning and injection author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Archivos Españoles de Urología (Ed. impresa)

Print version ISSN 0004-0614

Abstract

CAPOZZA, Nicola; NAPPO, Simona  and  CAIONE, Paolo. Endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux in the previously reimplanted ureter: technical aspects and results. Arch. Esp. Urol. [online]. 2008, vol.61, n.2, pp.249-253. ISSN 0004-0614.

Objectives: To assess the feasibility and results of the endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) after a failed ureteral reimplantation. Methods: From January 1996 to October 2006, 28 patients underwent endoscopic treatment for VUR grade II to V persisting after open ureteral reimplantation. VUR was bilateral in 11 patients, for a total of 39 ureteral units (UU) treated. The endoscopic treatment was performed 1 to 7 years after surgery (average 2.5 years). Dextranomer/Hyaluronic acid Copolymer (Dx/HA) was used as injectable material. The amount of injected material ranged from 0.5 to 2.8 ml (average: 1.2 ml). Some technical refinements were required to increase the success of the procedures. Patients were followed up from 2.5 to 17 years. Voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) was performed at 6 months and MAG3 renal scan with voiding phase at 24 months. Results were compared with the outcome of the endoscopic treatment in patients treated by the same surgeons for primary VUR, matched for grade (control group). Results: All treatments were performed as one-day procedure. No complications were observed. Success was achieved in 22/28 patients (78.5%) and in 30/39 UU (76.9 %) after failed ureteral reimplantation. No significant difference in success rate was found from the control group (p= ns). Conclusions: Endoscopic treatment of VUR after a failed reimplantion can be a challenging procedure, for a skilled endoscopists. Nonetheless it can achieve successful results in a high percentage of patients with minimal morbidity and a minimal invasiveness; it should thus be recommended for these patients.

Keywords : Vesicoureteral reflux; Ureteral reimplantation; Endoscopic treatment; Dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in English     · English ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License