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 | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|
1306-Article Text-3983-1-10-20160930.pdf | 125.19 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
CORE Recommender
Page view(s)
36
checked on Aug 24, 2024
Download(s)
16
checked on Aug 24, 2024
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
Items in GCRIS Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.