m+Medelevator.RU
← Поиск публикаций
Progres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie · 2005

[Failures of endoscopic treatment of vesico-ureteric reflux in children using Macroplastique].

Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Kouamé Bertin Dibi, Szwarc Caroline, Lardy Hubert, Lacombe Alain, Robert Michel

Аннотация

INTRODUCTION: Macroplastique has been used since 1993 for the endoscopic treatment of vesico-ureteric reflux in children with a failure rate per injected ureteric unit of 21%. The objective of this study was to analyse these failures on the basis of endoscopic findings on injection, ultrasound data at 2 months post-endoscopy and operative findings during the secondary reimplantation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed cases of failure of Macroplastique treatment from September 1993 to December 2002. Only children undergoing subsequent surgical reimplantation were included in the study: 60 cases (57 girls, 3 boys). Another 68 patients also presented recurrence of reflux, but are currently asymptomatic and have not been reoperated. Twenty five patients (42%) initially presented unilateral vesico-ureteric reflux: bilateral injection was performed in 17 of these cases because of the anatomical findings on endoscopy. In 92% of cases, the refluxing ureteric orifice appeared to be abnormal (in terms of position, appearance and the submucosal course of the ureter).

RESULTS: Eleven children (18%) presented symptomatic or asymptomatic urinary tract infection before the first clinical and radiological review at 2 months. On the first ultrasound examination, the implant was visualized in the bladder wall in 71% of cases. At reimplantation, the bladder mucosa was inflammatory in 56 patients (94%). The ureteric orifice remained gaping in 38% of cases and the implant appeared to be modified (migration, decreased volume) in 35% of cases.

CONCLUSION: Failures of endoscopic treatment by Macroplastique can be due to persistence of pre-existing ureteric anatomical lesions (poor indication, technical error or difficulty) or modification of the injected product. Bladder inflammation and therefore previous or post-endoscopy urinary tract infections may also play a role.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

ИП Урсолов Владлен Сергеевич

ИНН 500118482352 · ОГРНИП 314500117700049

Реквизиты и контакты