Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11499/9928
Title: Revisiting the EAU paediatric urology guideline risk grouping on vesicoureteral reflux: Shall we challenge ourselves?
Authors: Üre, İyimser
Gürocak, Serhat Özdemir
Tan, Özgür Mustafa
Acar, Cenk
Atay, İrfan
Ak, Esat
Sinik, Zafer
Keywords: Risk
Treatment
Vesicoureteral reflux
copolymer
dextronamer hyaluronic acid copolymer
unclassified drug
Article
child
controlled study
demography
differential diagnosis
disease course
disease severity
female
follow up
hemispheric dominance
high risk patient
human
kidney scar
low risk patient
major clinical study
male
medical care
medical history
pediatrics
postoperative complication
practice guideline
preschool child
reimplantation
reinjection
renal unit
retrospective study
school child
scintigraphy
treatment failure
treatment outcome
ultrasound
ureteral reimplantation
urinary tract infection
urography
urology
vesicoureteral reflux
ward
Publisher: Gazi Universitesi
Abstract: Objective: To challenge retrospectively the treatment outcomes of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) management according to new EAU Paediatric Urology Guideline Risk Grouping on VUR. Methods: The records of the patients who received medical and/or surgical treatment between 2009-2012 due to VUR were reviewed. History, demographic variables, diagnostic features (presence of renal scar, grade of reflux, laterality), clinical course, causes of failure, secondary intervention type and follow-up variables were analyzed. The patients were classified as low, moderate and high-risk groups according to EAU paediatric urology guideline. Treatment failure is defined as new urinary tract infection and presence of new renal scar during follow-up. Results: A total of 157 patients with 232 renal units (RU) were treated due to VUR. 33(71.7%) of 46RU's were treated with sub-ureteric injection and 18(39.1%) unsuccessful RU's were treated with re-injection in low risk group. Only 2(11.1%) re-injected RU's had postoperative UTI and/or new renal scar at follow-up. In moderate risk group, 54 and 7 of 61 unsuccessful RU's were treated with re-injection and ureteral re-implantation, respectively. 4(7.4%) of 54 had postoperative UTI and/or new renal scar at follow-up. In high-risk group, 13 and 12 of 25 unsuccessful RU's treated with re-injection and ureteral reimplantation, respectively. Conclusion: We detected over treatment in low risk group. Success of the surgical correction was evident in moderate and high-risk group. The surgeon should be more pursuer in low risk and more invasive in moderate and high-risk group. © Copyright 2016 by Gazi University Medical Faculty.
URI: https://hdl.handle.net/11499/9928
https://doi.org/10.12996/gmj.2016.57
ISSN: 2147-2092
Appears in Collections:Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / Scopus Indexed Publications Collection
Tıp Fakültesi Koleksiyonu
TR Dizin İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / TR Dizin Indexed Publications Collection
WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / WoS Indexed Publications Collection

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
1306-Article Text-3983-1-10-20160930.pdf125.19 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show full item record



CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

28
checked on May 27, 2024

Download(s)

6
checked on May 27, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check




Altmetric


Items in GCRIS Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.