Investigative and clinical urology · 2016
Secondary surgery for vesicoureteral reflux after failed endoscopic injection: Comparison to primary surgery.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Lee Seungsoo, Jeong Seung Chan, Chung Jae Min, Lee Sang Don
Аннотация
PURPOSE: As endoscopic treatment for vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) has increased, secondary ureteral reimplantation (UR) after failure of endoscopic treatment has increased. We studied the clinical feature and efficacy of secondary UR after failure of endoscopic treatment compared with primary UR.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-one children who had UR for VUR were enrolled. Charts were reviewed retrospectively for age, sex, grade of VUR before surgery, operative time, hospitalization period, postoperative complication, and success rate. Primary UR (group A, n=64) was compared with secondary UR after failed endoscopic treatment (group B, n=17). In group B, telephone survey for the satisfaction of endoscopic treatment and surgery was done.
RESULTS: Mean age of each group was 49.6±37.1 and 56.6±22.5 months (p=0.236). There was no significant difference between each group in sex, mean operative time, postoperative transfusion, complication rate, and success rate. As telephone survey in group B, eleven responders preferred endoscopic treatment as primary treatment of VUR because it was a simple method and no hospitalization.
CONCLUSIONS: Secondary UR after failure of endoscopic treatment was similar to primary UR. Parents preferred endoscopic treatment as first line treatment for VUR in spite of the need for secondary UR after failure of endoscopic treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-one children who had UR for VUR were enrolled. Charts were reviewed retrospectively for age, sex, grade of VUR before surgery, operative time, hospitalization period, postoperative complication, and success rate. Primary UR (group A, n=64) was compared with secondary UR after failed endoscopic treatment (group B, n=17). In group B, telephone survey for the satisfaction of endoscopic treatment and surgery was done.
RESULTS: Mean age of each group was 49.6±37.1 and 56.6±22.5 months (p=0.236). There was no significant difference between each group in sex, mean operative time, postoperative transfusion, complication rate, and success rate. As telephone survey in group B, eleven responders preferred endoscopic treatment as primary treatment of VUR because it was a simple method and no hospitalization.
CONCLUSIONS: Secondary UR after failure of endoscopic treatment was similar to primary UR. Parents preferred endoscopic treatment as first line treatment for VUR in spite of the need for secondary UR after failure of endoscopic treatment.