EVALUATION OF TWO SURGICAL TREATMENTS OF PRIMARY VESICOURETERAL REFLUX AMONG CHILDREN: A 15 YEARS EXPERIENCE
Methods: Retrospective study on children with primary VUR and their surgical treatment from 1999 to 2014 in the University Clinic for Pediatric Surgery in Skopje. A total of 76 children (114 ureters) with VUR ranging from second to fifth grade were treated surgically, 44 patients (67 ureters) with an open surgical technique and 32 patients (47 ureters) with endoscopic treatment STING procedure. The following parameters were analyzed: duration of the intervention, duration of the hospitalization, the need for antibiotics and analgesic therapy and the need for blood and blood derivatives transfusion. The result of the surgical treatment was also validated. A good result was considered when reduction of VUR by 2 degrees with the endoscopic method or by 3 degrees in the open surgical technique was noticed.
Results: Using open surgical technique, patients were hospitalized for an average of 9 days (range from 5 to 13 days). All children received double antibiotic therapy. The need for analgesics lasted for 3 to 4 days. 90% of treated children needed blood and/or blood derivatives transfusion. Success rate with this method was 93.8%. Endoscopic procedure was performed as a one-day surgical procedure. The average duration was 15 minutes. Single, prophylactic dose of antibiotic was ordinated. There was no need for blood and/or blood derivatives transfusion. The overall success of the treatment was about 70%.
Conclusion: Open surgical procedure is used for more complicated cases, VUR grade IV-V or by previously failed. Endoscopic, STING procedure was commonly used for patients with VUR grade greater than 2, after previously failed conservative treatment, febrile urinary infection despite antibiotic prophylaxis and/or emergence of new scarring in the renal parenchyma. Patient assessment and decision for what method will be used must always be done individually for each child.
Bailey RR, Lynn KL, Robson RA. End stage reflux nephropathy. Ren Fail. 1994; 16(1):27-36.
Pirker ME, Colhoun E, Puri P. Renal scarring in familial vesicoureteral reflux: is prevention possible? J Urol. 2006; 176(4 Pt 2):1842-6.
Lenaghan D, Whitaker JG, Jensen F, Stephens FD. The natural history of reflux and long term effects of reflux on the kidney. J Urol. 1976; 115(6):728-30.
Baskin L, Kogan B.Handbook of Pediatric Urology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Philadelphia, 2005.
Lebowitz RL, Olbing H, Parkkulainen KV, Semllie JM, Tamminen-Mobius TE. International system of radiographic grading of vesicoureteric reflux. International reflux study in children. Pediatr Radiol. 1985;15(2): 105-9.
Khouri EA, Darius JB. Vesicoureteral reflux. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA, eds.Campbell-Walsh Urology: Expert Consult Premium Edition. 10th ed. USA: Elsevier Saunders;2011.p. 3267-310.
The American Urological Association Pediatric Vesicoureteral Reflux Guidelines Panel. Report on the management of the primary vesicoureteral reflux in children. American Urological Association. 1997 Available at http://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/Arc-Vesicoureteral-Reflux.pdf.
Greenfield SP, Wan J. Vesicoureteral reflux: practical aspects of evaluation and management. Pediatr Nephrol. 1996; 10(6):789-94.
O`Donell B, Puri P: Endoscopic correction of primary vesicoureteral reflux: results in 94 ureters. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 1986; 293(6559): 1404-6.
Stenberg A, Lackgren G. A new bioimplant for the endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux: experimental and short term clinical results. J Urol. 1995; 154(2):800-3.
Sung J, Skoog S.Surgical management of vesicoureteral reflux in children. Pediatr Nephrol. 2012;27(4):551-61.
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2016 SANAMED
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.