Complete Ureteral Duplication: Outcome of Different Surgical Approaches

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Rodrigues, Isabel
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Estevão-Costa, José, Fragoso, Ana Catarina
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