Complicaciones del tratamiento endoscópico del reflujo vesicoureteral en la infancia

Postoperative ureteral obstruction after endoscopic treatment for vesicoureteral reflux

Purpose

We undertook this study to evaluate the incidence, risk factors, management, and outcome of postoperative ureteral obstruction after endoscopic treatment for vesicoureteral reflux (VUR).

Materials and Methods

Ninety patients undergoing endoscopic treatment for VUR were retrospectively reviewed and classified into two groups according to ureteral obstruction: the nonobstruction group (83 cases, 122 ureters; mean age, 7.0±2.8 years) and the obstruction group (7 cases, 10 ureters; mean age, 6.2±8.1 years). We analyzed the following factors: age, sex, injection material, laterality, voiding dysfunction, constipation, renal scarring, preoperative and postoperative ultrasound findings, endoscopic findings, injection number, and injection volume. Additionally, we reviewed the clinical manifestations, natural course, management, and outcome of ureteral obstruction after endoscopic treatment.

Results

The incidence of ureteral obstruction after endoscopic treatment was 7.6% (10/132 ureters). The type of bulking agent used and injection volume tended to be associated with ureteral obstruction. However, no significant risk factors for obstruction were identified between the two groups. Three patients showed no symptoms or signs after the onset of ureteral obstruction. Most of the patients with ureteral obstruction experienced spontaneous resolution within 1 month with conservative therapy. Two patients required temporary ureteral stents to release the ureteral obstruction.

Conclusions

In our experience, the incidence of ureteral obstruction was slightly higher than in previous reports. Our study identified no predictive risk factors for developing ureteral obstruction after endoscopic treatment. Although most of the ureteral obstructions resolved spontaneously within 1 month, some cases required drainage to relieve symptoms or to prevent renal function deterioration.

Ureteral obstruction following injection of dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer: an infrequent but relevant complication

PURPOSE

To report our experience with ureteral obstruction after injection of dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer (Dx/Ha) to treat vesicoureteral reflux, and analyze its possible causes, management and outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of patients undergoing injection of Dx/Ha. The charts of patients with clinically relevant ureteral obstruction were evaluated for indications, prior interventions, technique of injection and volume injected. Video recordings obtained during injection were analyzed to detect possible technical errors.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients (87 ureters) were treated with Dx/Ha injection in a 5-year period. Five ureters (5.7%) in five patients (9.3%) developed significant ureteral obstruction requiring intervention. Manifestations of obstruction included pain in two patients, urinary tract infections in one and loss of function in one. Increased serum creatinine was observed in a patient with a transplanted kidney. Four obstructions resolved spontaneously (two after percutaneous nephrostomy, two after placement of a ureteral stent) and one required reimplantation. Review of the videos did not reveal any deviation from the usual technique. The volumes injected in the obstructed cases (0.7-1.2 ml) were in the usual range.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series, the incidence of post Dx/Ha ureteral obstruction was higher than previously reported. Although 4/5 cases resolved spontaneously, they required drainage to relieve symptoms or to improve renal function. Surgeons need to be aware of this complication and include its possible occurrence in the informed consent obtained prior to injection.

Is a third endoscopic treatment for vesicoureteral reflux indicated if previous attempts have failed?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of a third endoscopic injection to correct vesicoureteral reflux (VUR).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective study of 605 patients, of whom 42 (6.4%), involving 44 (4%) ureteral units, received a third injection. The results were analysed regarding VUR grade and aetiology, substance used, volume, location and morphology of the mound, presence of poor prognostic factors, the urologist's experience, and complications.

RESULTS

The treatment resolved the VUR in 38 (86.4%) units, 22 of primary cause (91.6%) and 16 with anatomical/functional abnormalities (80%) (no significant difference; P = 0.26). There was also no significant difference in success rate with regard to the substance injected (P = 0.23), the degree of VUR (P = 0.76) or the volume injected (P = 0.17). The success rate was higher (96.9%) if a less experienced urologist had performed the previous procedure versus a more experienced urologist (54.5%), and this difference was significant (P < 0.005). There was one complication (haematuria) (2.3%).

CONCLUSION

Third treatment presents a similar efficacy to first and second treatments, with a very low rate of complications, and could be indicated before open surgery.

Endoscopic application of dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer in the treatment of vesico-ureteric reflux after renal transplantation

OBJECTIVE

• To evaluate the success of endoscopic dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer (DHAC) application in the treatment of patients with recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) and vesico-ureteric reflux (VUR) into the transplanted graft after renal transplantation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• Between January 2008 and April 2009, 19 patients with recurrent UTIs presented VUR proven by voiding cystourethrography. • To correct VUR of the transplanted ureter, DHAC was injected endoscopically using hydrodistention technique. • Pre- and postoperative serum creatinine levels, the number of pre- and postoperative UTIs, postoperative complications and reflux resolution rate were recorded. The mean follow-up was 6.5 months.

RESULTS

• The average number of UTIs was reduced significantly from 4.89 (range 2-14) to 1.31 (range 0-4) on pre- and postoperative follow-up, respectively, of 6 months (P < 0.001). The success rate increased from 57.9% after the first injection to 78.9% after the second injection. • The remaining four patients with residual VUR received long-term low dose antibiotic prophylaxis. In total, two (10.5%) patients developed increasing creatinine levels postoperatively as a result of distal ureteral obstruction, and temporary urinary drainage was necessary in both patients.

CONCLUSIONS

• DHAC appears to be an efficient and minimal invasive method for treating VUR after renal transplantation with respect to short-term success. • Further investigation with a larger group of patients and longer follow-up is needed to evaluate the prolonged effect, as well as any potential side effects.