OBJECTIVE: VUR in patients with a duplex system (DS) is often treated by open surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of subureteric polydimethylsiloxane (Macroplastique(®)) injection (SMING) in the management of VUR in duplex and single (SS) renal systems. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen children (24 refluxing renal units) with VUR in DS underwent SMING. VUR was more frequent in the lower moiety. VUR was graded moderate/severe in 88% of renal units. There was a history of urinary tract infections in 40% of cases. The outcome for DS patients was compared with 44 children (60 refluxing renal units) with moderate/severe VUR in SS. RESULTS: The VUR resolution/improvement rate was 88% in DS and 95% in SS patients. Ureteric reimplantation was required because of recurrent VUR in 13% and 7% of DS and SS groups, respectively. Transient ureteral obstruction was observed in 1/15 and 5/44 patients. Two required double-J ureteric stenting for 3 months. CONCLUSION: SMING seems an effective treatment for VUR in both DS and SS patients, even in severe cases. The complication rate does not significantly differ between the two groups. Copyright © 2010 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Polydimethylsiloxane (macroplastique(®)) injection for vesicoureteral reflux in duplex ureters: a comparison with single renal systems
LEGGIO, Samuele;
2011-01-01
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: VUR in patients with a duplex system (DS) is often treated by open surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of subureteric polydimethylsiloxane (Macroplastique(®)) injection (SMING) in the management of VUR in duplex and single (SS) renal systems. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen children (24 refluxing renal units) with VUR in DS underwent SMING. VUR was more frequent in the lower moiety. VUR was graded moderate/severe in 88% of renal units. There was a history of urinary tract infections in 40% of cases. The outcome for DS patients was compared with 44 children (60 refluxing renal units) with moderate/severe VUR in SS. RESULTS: The VUR resolution/improvement rate was 88% in DS and 95% in SS patients. Ureteric reimplantation was required because of recurrent VUR in 13% and 7% of DS and SS groups, respectively. Transient ureteral obstruction was observed in 1/15 and 5/44 patients. Two required double-J ureteric stenting for 3 months. CONCLUSION: SMING seems an effective treatment for VUR in both DS and SS patients, even in severe cases. The complication rate does not significantly differ between the two groups. Copyright © 2010 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
