Ureteral Obstruction After Endoscopic Treatment of Vesicoureteral Reflux: Does the Type of Injected Bulking Agent Matter?

被引:19
|
作者
Friedmacher, Florian [1 ,2 ]
Puri, Prem [1 ]
机构
[1] Our Ladys Childrens Hosp, Natl Childrens Res Ctr, Dublin, Ireland
[2] Royal London Hosp, Dept Pediat Surg, Whitechapel Rd, London E1 1FR, England
关键词
Vesicoureteral reflux; Ureter; Endoscopy; Ureteral obstruction; Deflux; Vantris; DEXTRANOMER/HYALURONIC ACID COPOLYMER; MINIMALLY INVASIVE TREATMENT; DEFLUX INJECTION; SUBURETERAL INJECTION; CHILDREN; DISTAL;
D O I
10.1007/s11934-019-0913-5
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose of ReviewEndoscopic injection of bulking agents for the treatment of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) has become a therapeutic alternative to antibiotic prophylaxis and ureteral reimplantation. Although considered as a safe and efficient procedure, several studies have reported cases of ureteral obstruction (UO) after endoscopic correction of VUR. This review article evaluates the present VUR literature to estimate the incidence of UO following endoscopic injection of different substances, while also discussing the impact of injection technique and implant volume.Recent FindingsTwenty-five publications were identified that provided detailed information on 64 females and 32 males (age range, 7months-48years) that developed UO after endoscopic treatment of VUR using dextranomer/hyaluronic acid (Dx/HA), polyacrylate polyalcohol (PP), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), calcium hydroxyapatite (CaHA), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), or collagen. There was some variation in the reported incidence of UO among these materials: Dx/HA (0.5-6.1%), PP (1.1-1.6%), PDMS (2.5-10.0%), CaHA (1.0%), and PTFE (0.3%). Postoperative UO was described following subureteric transurethral injection (STING), intraureteric hydrodistension implantation technique (HIT), combined HIT/STING and double HIT. The injected volume ranged widely, also depending on the type of bulking agent: Dx/HA (0.3-3.0mL), PP (0.3-1.2mL), PDMS (1.0-2.2mL), CaHA (0.4-0.6mL), and PTFE (1.5-2.0mL). The timing of UO varied from immediately after the procedure to 63months. Over half of patients showed asymptomatic hydroureteronephrosis on follow-up imaging, whereas the remaining presented with symptoms of acute UO or fever.SummaryUO remains a rare complication after endoscopic correction of VUR, generally reported in less than 1% of treated cases, which appears to be independent of the injected substance, volume, and technique. However, long-term follow-up is recommended as asymptomatic or delayed UO can occur, potentially leading to deterioration of renal function.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Does the Diameter of Dextranomer Microspheres Affect the Success in Endoscopic Treatment of Vesicoureteral Reflux?
    Aydogdu, Ozgu
    Ozcan, Cihat
    Burgu, Berk
    Mermerkeya, Murat
    Soygur, Tarkan
    UROLOGY, 2012, 80 (03) : 703 - 706
  • [42] Appearance of Dextranomer/Hyaluronic Acid Copolymer Implants on Computerized Tomography After Endoscopic Treatment of Vesicoureteral Reflux in Children
    Cerwinka, Wolfgang H.
    Qian, Jing
    Easley, Kirk A.
    Scherz, Hal C.
    Kirsch, Andrew J.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 181 (03) : 1324 - 1328
  • [43] Acute kidney injury caused by ureteral obstruction after Deflux® injection treatment for vesicoureteral reflux after pediatric kidney transplantation: a case report
    Aoki, Yujiro
    Hamasaki, Yuko
    Hashimoto, Junya
    Zaitsu, Ayuko
    Maeda, Maho
    Muramatsu, Masaki
    Kawamura, Takeshi
    Shishido, Seiichiro
    Sakai, Ken
    BMC UROLOGY, 2025, 25 (01):
  • [44] Transvesicoscopic Ureteral Reimplantation for Primary Vesicoureteral Reflux in Children: Does Prior Failed Endoscopic Injection Impact Outcome?
    Chandrasekharam, V. V. S.
    Ravula, Satyanarayana
    Janapareddy, Khyati Kiran
    JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2023, 33 (04): : 417 - 421
  • [45] Does pre-fellowship experience alter success rates of endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux during pediatric urology fellowship?
    Selvi, Ismail
    Canbaz, Furkan Adem
    Donmez, M. Irfan
    Ozkuvanci, Unsal
    Cetin, Bilal
    Kart, Mucahit
    Oktar, Tayfun
    Ziylan, Orhan
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGY, 2022, 18 (04) : 527.e1 - 527.e8
  • [46] Endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux after kidney transplantation: outcomes and predictive factors of clinical and radiological success
    Cilesiz, Nusret Can
    Onuk, Ozkan
    Ozkan, Arif
    Kalkanli, Arif
    Gezmis, Cem Tugrul
    Nuhoglu, Baris
    INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2022, 54 (05) : 1023 - 1029
  • [47] Randomized clinical trial between polyacrylate-polyalcohol copolymer (PPC) and dextranomer-hyaluronic acid copolymer (Dx/HA) as bulking agents for endoscopic treatment of primary vesicoureteral reflux (VUR)
    Garcia-Aparicio, L.
    Blazquez-Gomez, E.
    Martin, O.
    Perez-Bertolez, S.
    Arboleda, J.
    Soria, A.
    Tarrado, X.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 36 (10) : 1651 - 1656
  • [48] Appearance of Deflux® implants with magnetic resonance imaging after endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux in children
    Cerwinka, Wolfgang H.
    Grattan-Smith, J. Damien
    Scherz, Hal C.
    Kirsch, Andrew J.
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGY, 2009, 5 (02) : 114 - 118
  • [49] Bladder Dysfunction and Re-Absorbable Bulking Agent Affect Success Rate in Children Underwent Endoscopic Treatment for Vesicoureteral Reflux: A Long-Term Follow-Up Study
    Cocomazzi, Raffaella
    Salatto, Alessia
    Campanella, Vittoria
    Pastore, Valentina
    Maggipinto, Cosetta
    Aceto, Gabriella
    Bartoli, Fabio
    CHILDREN-BASEL, 2021, 8 (10):
  • [50] Routine delayed voiding cystourethography after initial successful endoscopic treatment with Dextranomer/Hialuronic Acid Copolimer (Dx/HA) of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). Is it necessary?
    Garcia-Aparicio, L.
    Blazquez-Gomez, E.
    Santandreu, A. Vila
    Diaz, J. A. Camacho
    Vila-Cots, J.
    Cebrian, M. Ramos
    de Haro, I.
    Martin, O.
    Tarrado, X.
    Actas Urologicas Espanolas, 2016, 40 (10): : 635 - 639