SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.61 número2Tratamiento de reflujo vesicoureteralModificación del procedimiento de inyección subureteral estándar (STING) para el reflujo vesico ureteral: reposicionamiento ureteral e inyección índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


Archivos Españoles de Urología (Ed. impresa)

versión impresa ISSN 0004-0614

Resumen

CAPOZZA, Nicola; NAPPO, Simona  y  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.

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

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Inglés     · Inglés ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License Todo el contenido de esta revista, excepto dónde está identificado, está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons