The "incidental anesthetic" - an opportunity for the endoscopic correction of vesicoureteral reflux in children

被引:0
作者
Tamarkina, Elena [1 ]
El-Sherbiny, Mohammed [1 ]
Jednak, Roman [1 ]
Capolicchio, John-Paul [1 ]
机构
[1] McGill Univ, Montreal Childrens Hosp, Ctr Hlth, Div Pediat Urol, Montreal, PQ H3H 1P3, Canada
来源
CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL | 2009年 / 3卷 / 03期
关键词
DEXTRANOMER/HYALURONIC ACID COPOLYMER; TRIMETHOPRIM-SULFAMETHOXAZOLE; OBSTRUCTION; MANAGEMENT; INJECTION;
D O I
暂无
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
Introduction: The endoscopic management of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) with subureteric injection (STING) has become more popular. The low morbidity associated with the STING procedure has led to some authors advocating its use as a first-line therapy. Many parents are uncomfortable with this procedure being performed in children because of the potential morbidity associated with general anesthesia. We present an alternative without added anesthetic morbidity: offering the parents a STING when their is undergoing an anesthetic for another surgical indication. Methods: We reviewed the records of 10 children who underwent incidental dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer (DHA) injection over a 2-year period. Results: We considered the treatment outcome after a single STING procedure to be successful in 8 (80%) patients and a failure in 2 (20%). Distribution of VUR grade, according to the highest grade per patient, was high in 5 (50%) patients, moderate in 3 (30%) and low in 2 (20%). We observed no complications. Conclusion: The idea of performing STING in children under incidental anesthetic introduces yet another possibility in the paradigm of VUR care. Though the long-term efficacy of DHA remains to be determined, this option reduces the potential morbidity of DHA as first-line therapy while favourably altering the cost benefit.
引用
收藏
页码:225 / 228
页数:4
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]  
Bijl AMH, 1998, CLIN EXP ALLERGY, V28, P510, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2222.1998.00258.x
[2]   Deflux for vesicoureteral reflux: Pro- The case for endoscopic correction [J].
Canning, Douglas A. .
UROLOGY, 2006, 68 (02) :239-241
[3]   Dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer implantation for vesico-ureteral reflux: A randomized comparison with antibiotic prophylaxis [J].
Capozza, N ;
Caione, P .
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 2002, 140 (02) :230-234
[4]   Endoscopic treatment for vesicoureteral reflux: Let's not get carried away! [J].
Cendron, Marc .
UROLOGY, 2006, 68 (02) :242-243
[5]   Endoscopic therapy for vesicoureteral reflux: A meta-analysis. I. Reflux resolution and urinary tract infection [J].
Elder, JS ;
Diaz, M ;
Caldamone, AA ;
Cendron, M ;
Greenfield, S ;
Hurwitz, R ;
Kirsch, A ;
Koyle, MA ;
Pope, J ;
Shapiro, E .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2006, 175 (02) :716-722
[6]   Imaging for vesicoureteral reflux - Is there a better way? [J].
Elder, JS .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2005, 174 (01) :7-8
[7]   Pediatric vesicoureteral reflux guidelines panel summary report on the management of primary vesicoureteral reflux in children [J].
Elder, JS ;
Peters, CA ;
Arant, BS ;
Ewalt, DH ;
Hawtrey, CE ;
Hurwitz, RS ;
Parrott, TS ;
Snyder, HM ;
Weiss, RA ;
Woolf, SH ;
Hasselblad, V .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1997, 157 (05) :1846-1851
[8]  
JICK H, 1995, PHARMACOTHERAPY, V15, P428
[9]   Adverse reactions of nitrofurantoin, trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole in children [J].
Karpman, E ;
Kurzrock, EA .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2004, 172 (02) :448-453
[10]  
Kirsch Andrew, 2006, J Pediatr Urol, V2, P539, DOI 10.1016/j.jpurol.2005.12.004