|
PEDIATRIC
UROLOGY
Unilateral vesicoureteral reflux: does endoscopic injection based on the
cystoscopic appearance of the ureteral orifice decrease the incidence
of de-novo contralateral reflux?
Routh JC, Inman BA, Ashley RA, Vandersteen DR, Reinberg Y, Wolpert JJ,
Kramer SA, Husmann DA.
Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
J Pediatr Urol. 2008; 4: 260-4
- Objective:
In patients with unilateral vesicoureteral reflux (VUR), it has been
suggested that injection of a non-refluxing but cystoscopically abnormal
contralateral ureteral orifice (UO) with dextranomer/hyaluronic acid
(Dx/HA) should be performed to prevent the development of de-novo contralateral
VUR. We evaluate the effectiveness of this practice.
- Patients
and Methods: Patients with primary unilateral VUR undergoing
injection of Dx/HA from 2002 to 2005 at two institutions were eligible.
Patients with unilateral VUR with cystoscopically abnormal contralateral
UOs were injected with Dx/HA, while patients with normal appearing UOs
received no treatment. Multivariate logistic regression models were
used to estimate the impact of prophylactic injection on the development
of de-novo contralateral VUR.
-
Results:
In total, 101 patients with unilateral VUR and an abnormal appearing
contralateral UO underwent prophylactic injection of Dx/HA while 45
patients with a normal appearing contralateral UO were untreated. In
patients receiving prophylactic Dx/HA, 9% (9/101) of the previously
non-refluxing ureters developed de-novo VUR. Similarly, 13% (6/45) of
patients with a normal appearing UO treated by observation alone developed
de-novo VUR (P=0.55). The overall incidence of 10% (15/146) de-novo
contralateral VUR matches published results where this protocol was
not followed.
-
Conclusions:
Our findings suggest that cystoscopic assessment and prophylactic treatment
of an abnormal appearing, non-refluxing contralateral UO with Dx/HA
is of little clinical benefit and should be abandoned.
- Editorial
Comment
This research was done at both the Mayo Clinic and the Division of Urology
in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It was noted that 7-20% of patients undergoing
unilateral endoscopic injection therapy or ureteroneocystostomy will
develop de-novo contralateral vesicoureteral reflux. The authors cystoscopically
evaluated 146 patients on the contralateral side during a 3½
year period with unilateral reflux before the refluxing side underwent
Deflux® therapy. If the ureteral orifice was deemed abnormal by
the pediatric urologists, either from orifice appearance or from hydrodistention
appearance, the contralateral ureter was treated with Deflux® also.
The average age was approximately six years with 91% of the patients
being female. 69% were judged to have an abnormal appearing ureteral
orifice and were injected with Deflux®; while 31% of the patients
were judged to have a normal orifice and were not injected. Cyclical
voiding cystourethrograms or nuclear cystograms were performed at three
months and de-novo vesicoureteral reflux developed in 9% when the orifice
was prophylactically treated with Deflux® and in 13% when the orifice
was judged normal and no Deflux® was treated. This was not statistically
significant. The author’s conclude that prophylactic treatment
of abnormal ureteral orifices should not be performed since it showed
no benefit over no treatment at all.
Decades ago, urologists spent significant time cystoscopically judging
ureteral orifice and position and eventually studies showed that the
results correlated very well with radiographic vesicoureteral reflux
grading and the practice was generally abandoned. With new information
about hydrodistention of the ureter, this concept has been revisited
and this manuscript suggests that there is no benefit in this evaluation
or in the prophylactic treatment of these ureters and yet again this
practice can be laid aside.
Dr. Brent W. Snow
Division of Urology
University of Utah Health Sci Ctr
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
E-mail: brent.snow@hsc.utah.edu |