3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Endoscopic Incision of Ureteroceles: Intravesical Versus Ectopic

      , , , ,
      The Journal of Urology
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A total of 51 children, mostly less than 2 years old, underwent endoscopic incision of ureteroceles as a primary form of treatment. In 73% no further surgery was required. Of the patients 19 were diagnosed by prenatal ultrasound, with a urinary tract infection the usual presenting symptom in the remainder. Of 27 intravesical cases endoscopic incision resulted in decompression of the ureterocele in 93%, with preservation of upper pole function in 96%, and secondary surgical procedures were required in 7%. Reflux was created in 18% and it persisted in 2 of 4 patients. Of 24 cases of ectopic (extravesical) ureteroceles incision resulted in decompression in 75%, with upper pole function preserved in 50%. Reflux was created in 47% and a secondary surgical procedure was performed in 50%. Preservation of upper pole function was significantly better for intravesical versus ectopic ureteroceles (p < 0.01), and the requirement for secondary surgical procedure was greater with ectopic ureteroceles (p < 0.01). Three patients had intermittent bladder outlet obstruction following the incision and required further surgery. The 2 different techniques for incision of intravesical and ectopic ureteroceles are described. The role of endoscopic incision in the overall management of ureteroceles is confirmed by this review, and the need for partial nephroureterectomy may diminish.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          The Journal of Urology
          The Journal of Urology
          Elsevier BV
          00225347
          March 1993
          March 1993
          : 149
          : 3
          : 556-560
          Article
          10.1016/S0022-5347(17)36146-3
          8437264
          6637898a-75b1-42b1-90d7-b7f512912b8f
          © 1993

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article