0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Modified unilateral periureteral injection technique in the treatment of patients with high-grade vesicoureteral reflux: A study of primary findings

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Objective

          Although endoscopic treatment has been used by many pediatric urologists for the treatment of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR), it has no considerable success in high-grade VUR. We aimed to describe the primary outcomes of unilateral periureteral injection technique (PIT), as well as bilateral PIT in high-grade VUR.

          Methods

          In this prospective study, we examined 92 ureters in 45 boys and 40 girls from February 2010 to May 2018. Bilateral PIT and unilateral PIT were applied in 67 and 25 refluxing units, respectively. In the unilateral PIT, the subureteral injection site was only at the 5- or 7-o'clock position. However, in the bilateral PIT, the subureteral injection sites were at 5- and 7-o'clock position. Pre- and post-operative reflux grades were evaluated by voiding cystourethrography 6 months after surgery.

          Results

          Seven patients had bilateral reflux. Overall, 75 (81.5%) ureters showed Grade IV VUR, while 17 (18.5%) had primary Grade V VUR. The mean age of the subjects was 39.2 months. In unilateral PIT ureters, VUR was resolved in 23 (92.0%) refluxing units. It was downgraded to Grade III in one ureter (4.0%) and to Grade II in another ureter (4.0%). In addition, in bilateral PIT cases, VUR was resolved in 60 (89.6%) ureters; it downgraded to Grades II and III in 3 (4.5%) and 4 (6.0%) refluxing units, respectively.

          Conclusion

          Unilateral PIT can be highly effective in the treatment of selected ureters of high-grade VUR. However, further studies are needed to confirm our results.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          International system of radiographic grading of vesicoureteric reflux. International Reflux Study in Children.

          The classification of grading of vesicoureteric reflux (VUR) agreed to by the participants in the International Reflux Study in Children is described. It combines two earlier classifications and is based upon the extent of filling and dilatation by VUR of the ureter, the renal pelvis and the calyces. A standardised technique of voiding cystography is also described to ensure comparability of results.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The modified sting procedure to correct vesicoureteral reflux: improved results with submucosal implantation within the intramural ureter.

            With the advent of tissue bulking agents, in particular dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer (Dx/HA), for endoscopic implantation for vesicoureteral reflux (VUR), there has been a major shift in the surgical paradigm throughout Europe, and more recently, in the United States. We describe a modification of the technique used for implantation that has significantly improved our results. Between October 2001 and October 2003, 285 children 7 months to 15 years old (mean age 4.6 years) underwent endoscopic implantation of Dx/HA for VUR at our institutions. A modified STING (subureteral transurethral injection) procedure (implantation submucosally within the intramural ureter) was introduced during the last year of the study. The average volume of injected material was measured for each ureter. Renal sonography was performed to determine if hydronephrosis was present. At 3 months flouroscopic voiding cystourethrograms were used to evaluate for the presence of VUR. A subset of 122 patients treated with STING (52) were compared to those treated with modified STING (70). A total of 459 ureters in 231 girls and 54 boys were treated (174 bilateral cases). Mean maximum grade per patient was 2.5/5. Mean injected volume was 0.9 cc ureter. There were 181 patients with at least 3 months of followup. After 1 treatment 76% (137 of 181) of cases were cured (grade 0 reflux), while 54% (24 of 44) of the failures were improved. The overall cure rate was 94% for grade I, 85% for grade II, 78% for grade III and 71% for grade IV reflux. The patients treated with STING had a mean age of 4.8 years, mean maximum reflux grade was 2.5 and success rate was 71% (37 of 52; 86% grade I, 89% grade II, 70% grade III and 63% grade IV reflux). The patients treated with a modified STING had a mean age of 5.5 years, mean maximum grade was 2.8 and a success rate was 89% (62 of 70; 100% grade I, 92% grade II, 91% grade III and 90% grade IV reflux). Ureteral success rates were significantly (p <0.01) greater for the modified STING (92%) vs the standard STING (79%). There were no cases of hydronephrosis at 3 months postoperatively. The majority of patients undergoing minimally invasive therapy for VUR with Dx/HA are cured after 1 treatment. The modified STING is our preferred method of implant injection for the correction of VUR and in our hands produces a resolution rate of 89% (92% of ureters). The technique optimizes ureteral coaptation, is easy to perform and is not associated with any significant short-term complications. Persistence of VUR in a minority of patients continues to be the only significant adverse effect of endoscopic implantation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Endoscopic therapy for vesicoureteral reflux: a meta-analysis. I. Reflux resolution and urinary tract infection.

              Current American Urological Association treatment guidelines for vesicoureteral reflux do not include any recommendations pertaining to endoscopic therapy (subureteral injection of bulking agent). We performed a meta-analysis of the existing literature pertaining to endoscopic treatment to allow comparison with reports of open surgical correction. We searched all peer reviewed articles published through 2003 pertaining to endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux. A total of 63 articles were double reviewed by 9 pediatric urologists, and the data were tabulated on data retrieval sheets. A mixed effects logistic regression model was used to obtain overall estimates of event probabilities (eg reflux resolution, ureteral obstruction) together with their 95% confidence intervals. Individual study estimates were obtained with overall estimate and observation characteristics using empirical Bayes calculations. Differences between or among specific groups were assessed using the F-test. The database included 5,527 patients and 8,101 renal units. Following 1 treatment the reflux resolution rate (by ureter) for grades I and II reflux was 78.5%, grade III 72%, grade IV 63% and grade V 51%. If the first injection was unsuccessful, the second treatment had a success rate of 68%, and the third treatment 34%. The aggregate success rate with 1 or more injections was 85%. The success rate was significantly lower for duplicated (50%) vs single systems (73%), and neuropathic (62%) vs normal bladders (74%). The success rate was similar among children and adults. Following a previous failed open reimplantation endoscopic treatment was successful in 65% of patients. After endoscopic treatment with variable followup pyelonephritis developed in 0.75% of patients and cystitis in 6%. There were few reports of renal scarring following treatment. Endoscopic treatment provides a high rate of success in children with reflux that decreases with increasing grade, although multiple treatments may be necessary. Future reports of endoscopic therapy should include rates of urinary tract infection and renal scarring.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Asian J Urol
                Asian J Urol
                Asian Journal of Urology
                Second Military Medical University
                2214-3882
                2214-3890
                01 August 2022
                January 2023
                01 August 2022
                : 10
                : 1
                : 96-100
                Affiliations
                [a ]Urology Research Center, Razi Hospital, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
                [b ]School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
                [c ]Faculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. dr.arsalan2010@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                S2214-3882(22)00056-X
                10.1016/j.ajur.2021.11.011
                9875151
                db6d535e-1908-4327-9042-ff8b94cc18bb
                © 2022 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 13 January 2021
                : 7 May 2021
                : 22 November 2021
                Categories
                Surgery Alive

                periureteral injection technique,bilateral periureteral injection technique,unilateral periureteral injection technique,endoscopy,vesicoureteral reflux

                Comments

                Comment on this article