Complete Ureteral Duplication: Outcome of Different Surgical Approaches
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2016 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/6329 |
Resumo: | Introduction: The surgical management of complete ureteral duplication anomalies is not consensual.Objective: To characterize the pediatric population who underwent surgery for complete ureteral duplication and assess the outcomes of different approaches.Material and Methods: Clinical records from patients treated between January 2008 and June 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Epidemiology, diagnosis, clinical manifestations and surgical procedures were collected and analysed. Ureteral units were divided into two groups: A, with ureterocele; and B, without it.Results: Forty-one ureteral units from 32 patients with complete duplication underwent surgery. In group A (n = 18), the selected primary procedure was: ureterocele punction (12); ureter reimplantation (3); pyelopyelostomy (2); heminephrectomy (1). A reintervention was required in 3 of the 12 units submitted to punction: heminephrectomy (1), ureteroureterostomy (1), and ureteric reimplantation (1). In group B (n = 23), STING was performed in 10 units, ureteric reimplantation in 3, pyelopyelostomy in 3, ureteroureterostomy in 1, and heminephrectomy in 6; two cases required reintervention. Discussion: A conservative primary approach was favoured in cases with ureterocele and/or reflux in hemisystems worth preserving (53.7%); it was effective per se in 75% (n = 9/12) units in group A and 80% (n = 8/10) in group B. An ablative primary procedure was adopted in 17% (n = 7/41) cases, 5.6% of group A (n = 1/18) and 26.1% of group B (n = 6/23).Conclusions: A conservative approach is effective as a primary and isolated procedure in the majority of cases with ureterocele or vesicoureteral reflux. Further studies are needed to establish the advantages over primary invasive or ablative approaches. |
id |
RCAP_403a85850672a221fd9b3cbb0896409e |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.www.actamedicaportuguesa.com:article/6329 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Complete Ureteral Duplication: Outcome of Different Surgical ApproachesDuplicação Ureteral Completa: Resultado de Diferentes Abordagens CirúrgicasNephrectomyUreter/abnormalitiesUreter/surgeryVesico-Ureteral Reflux.efrectomiaRefluxo VesicoureteralUreter/anomaliasUreter/cirurgia.Introduction: The surgical management of complete ureteral duplication anomalies is not consensual.Objective: To characterize the pediatric population who underwent surgery for complete ureteral duplication and assess the outcomes of different approaches.Material and Methods: Clinical records from patients treated between January 2008 and June 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Epidemiology, diagnosis, clinical manifestations and surgical procedures were collected and analysed. Ureteral units were divided into two groups: A, with ureterocele; and B, without it.Results: Forty-one ureteral units from 32 patients with complete duplication underwent surgery. In group A (n = 18), the selected primary procedure was: ureterocele punction (12); ureter reimplantation (3); pyelopyelostomy (2); heminephrectomy (1). A reintervention was required in 3 of the 12 units submitted to punction: heminephrectomy (1), ureteroureterostomy (1), and ureteric reimplantation (1). In group B (n = 23), STING was performed in 10 units, ureteric reimplantation in 3, pyelopyelostomy in 3, ureteroureterostomy in 1, and heminephrectomy in 6; two cases required reintervention. Discussion: A conservative primary approach was favoured in cases with ureterocele and/or reflux in hemisystems worth preserving (53.7%); it was effective per se in 75% (n = 9/12) units in group A and 80% (n = 8/10) in group B. An ablative primary procedure was adopted in 17% (n = 7/41) cases, 5.6% of group A (n = 1/18) and 26.1% of group B (n = 6/23).Conclusions: A conservative approach is effective as a primary and isolated procedure in the majority of cases with ureterocele or vesicoureteral reflux. Further studies are needed to establish the advantages over primary invasive or ablative approaches.Introdução: O tratamento cirúrgico das duplicações ureterais completas não é consensual.Objetivos: Caraterizar a população pediátrica submetida a cirurgia para tratamento de duplicações ureterais completas e avaliar resultados de diferentes abordagens.Material e Métodos: Processos clínicos de doentes tratados entre janeiro de 2008 e junho de 2014 foram retrospetivamente revistos. Dados acerca de epidemiologia, diagnóstico, manifestações clínicas e procedimentos cirúrgicos foram recolhidos. As unidades ureterais foram divididas em dois grupos: A, com ureterocelo; e B, sem ureterocelo.Resultados: Quarenta e uma unidades ureterais de 32 doentes com duplicação completa foram intervencionados. No grupo A (n = 18), o procedimento primário selecionado foi: punção de ureterocelo (12); reimplantação de ureter (3); pielopielostomia (2) e heminefrectomia (1). Foi necessário reintervir em três dos 12 casos submetidos a punção: heminefrectomia (1), ureteroureterostomia (1) e reimplantação (1). No grupo B (n = 23), foi efetuado STING em 10 unidades, reimplantação ureteral em três, pielopielostomia em três, ureteroureterostomia em um, e heminefrectomia em seis; dois casos necessitaram de reintervenção.Discussão: Foi favorecida uma abordagem primária conservadora para tratamento de ureterocelo ou refluxo em hemissistemas a preservar (53,7%; n = 22/41), tendo sido eficaz per se em 75% (n = 9/12) unidades do grupo A e 80% (n = 8/10) do grupo B. Uma abordagem ablativa primária foi adotada em 17% (n = 7/14) casos, 5,6% do grupo A (n = 1/18) e 26,1% do grupo B (n = 6/23). Conclusão: Uma abordagem conservadora é eficaz como procedimento primário isolado na maioria dos casos com ureterocelo ou refluxo. Mais estudos são necessários para estabelecer as suas vantagens sobre abordagens primárias invasivas ou ablativas.Ordem dos Médicos2016-04-29info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfapplication/mswordapplication/pdfhttps://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/6329oai:ojs.www.actamedicaportuguesa.com:article/6329Acta Médica Portuguesa; Vol. 29 No. 4 (2016): April; 275-278Acta Médica Portuguesa; Vol. 29 N.º 4 (2016): Abril; 275-2781646-07580870-399Xreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/6329https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/6329/4656https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/6329/7757https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/6329/7963Direitos de Autor (c) 2016 Acta Médica Portuguesa - Ordem dos Médicosinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRodrigues, IsabelEstevão-Costa, JoséFragoso, Ana Catarina2022-12-20T11:04:49Zoai:ojs.www.actamedicaportuguesa.com:article/6329Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:19:17.727411Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Complete Ureteral Duplication: Outcome of Different Surgical Approaches Duplicação Ureteral Completa: Resultado de Diferentes Abordagens Cirúrgicas |
title |
Complete Ureteral Duplication: Outcome of Different Surgical Approaches |
spellingShingle |
Complete Ureteral Duplication: Outcome of Different Surgical Approaches Rodrigues, Isabel Nephrectomy Ureter/abnormalities Ureter/surgery Vesico-Ureteral Reflux. efrectomia Refluxo Vesicoureteral Ureter/anomalias Ureter/cirurgia. |
title_short |
Complete Ureteral Duplication: Outcome of Different Surgical Approaches |
title_full |
Complete Ureteral Duplication: Outcome of Different Surgical Approaches |
title_fullStr |
Complete Ureteral Duplication: Outcome of Different Surgical Approaches |
title_full_unstemmed |
Complete Ureteral Duplication: Outcome of Different Surgical Approaches |
title_sort |
Complete Ureteral Duplication: Outcome of Different Surgical Approaches |
author |
Rodrigues, Isabel |
author_facet |
Rodrigues, Isabel Estevão-Costa, José Fragoso, Ana Catarina |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Estevão-Costa, José Fragoso, Ana Catarina |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Rodrigues, Isabel Estevão-Costa, José Fragoso, Ana Catarina |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Nephrectomy Ureter/abnormalities Ureter/surgery Vesico-Ureteral Reflux. efrectomia Refluxo Vesicoureteral Ureter/anomalias Ureter/cirurgia. |
topic |
Nephrectomy Ureter/abnormalities Ureter/surgery Vesico-Ureteral Reflux. efrectomia Refluxo Vesicoureteral Ureter/anomalias Ureter/cirurgia. |
description |
Introduction: The surgical management of complete ureteral duplication anomalies is not consensual.Objective: To characterize the pediatric population who underwent surgery for complete ureteral duplication and assess the outcomes of different approaches.Material and Methods: Clinical records from patients treated between January 2008 and June 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Epidemiology, diagnosis, clinical manifestations and surgical procedures were collected and analysed. Ureteral units were divided into two groups: A, with ureterocele; and B, without it.Results: Forty-one ureteral units from 32 patients with complete duplication underwent surgery. In group A (n = 18), the selected primary procedure was: ureterocele punction (12); ureter reimplantation (3); pyelopyelostomy (2); heminephrectomy (1). A reintervention was required in 3 of the 12 units submitted to punction: heminephrectomy (1), ureteroureterostomy (1), and ureteric reimplantation (1). In group B (n = 23), STING was performed in 10 units, ureteric reimplantation in 3, pyelopyelostomy in 3, ureteroureterostomy in 1, and heminephrectomy in 6; two cases required reintervention. Discussion: A conservative primary approach was favoured in cases with ureterocele and/or reflux in hemisystems worth preserving (53.7%); it was effective per se in 75% (n = 9/12) units in group A and 80% (n = 8/10) in group B. An ablative primary procedure was adopted in 17% (n = 7/41) cases, 5.6% of group A (n = 1/18) and 26.1% of group B (n = 6/23).Conclusions: A conservative approach is effective as a primary and isolated procedure in the majority of cases with ureterocele or vesicoureteral reflux. Further studies are needed to establish the advantages over primary invasive or ablative approaches. |
publishDate |
2016 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2016-04-29 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/6329 oai:ojs.www.actamedicaportuguesa.com:article/6329 |
url |
https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/6329 |
identifier_str_mv |
oai:ojs.www.actamedicaportuguesa.com:article/6329 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/6329 https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/6329/4656 https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/6329/7757 https://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/revista/index.php/amp/article/view/6329/7963 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Direitos de Autor (c) 2016 Acta Médica Portuguesa - Ordem dos Médicos info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Direitos de Autor (c) 2016 Acta Médica Portuguesa - Ordem dos Médicos |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/msword application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Ordem dos Médicos |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Ordem dos Médicos |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Acta Médica Portuguesa; Vol. 29 No. 4 (2016): April; 275-278 Acta Médica Portuguesa; Vol. 29 N.º 4 (2016): Abril; 275-278 1646-0758 0870-399X reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799130643856097280 |