4.6 Article

Quo vadis? Ureteric reimplantation or ignoring reflux during augmentation cystoplasty

Journal

BJU INTERNATIONAL
Volume 94, Issue 3, Pages 379-380

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.04965.x

Keywords

bladder; exstrophy-epispadias; augmentation cystoplasty; infravesical obstruction; neurogenic; vesico-ureteric reflux

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE To decide whether antireflux surgery should be used in the presence of vesico-ureteric reflux (VUR) in children, in whom an augmentation procedure is needed, because secondary VUR in children with a neurogenic bladder, infravesical obstruction and primary VUR in the exstrophy-epispadias complex is expected to resolve after augmentation, which decreases the intravesical pressure and increases capacity. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between 1987 and 2001, the bladder was augmented in 38 children, using no antireflux surgery in group 1 (15 patients) and antireflux surgery in group 2 (23 patients). RESULTS VUR was detected in all patients on cysto-urethrography before surgery; reflux resolved after augmentation cystoplasty in 97% and 93% of refluxing units in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The increase in the expected bladder capacity was from 35% to 86% in group 1 and from 38% to 90% in group 2. No patient had any deterioration in renal function. CONCLUSIONS We recommend using only augmentation in patients with low- or high-grade VUR and a neurogenic bladder, infravesical obstruction and exstrophy-epispadias. Combining antireflux surgery with cystoplasty has no significant effect on either the resolution of VUR or renal function.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available