Duplex systems: Top-down or bottom-up approach

被引:9
|
作者
Keene, D. J. B. [1 ]
Subramaniam, R. [2 ]
机构
[1] Royal Manchester Childrens Hosp, Dept Paediat Urol, Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9WL, Lancs, England
[2] Leeds Gen Infirm, Dept Paediat Urol, Leeds LS1 3EX, W Yorkshire, England
关键词
Duplex; Ureterocele; Reflux; Mureteric reimplantation; Heminephrectomy; URETERAL REIMPLANTATION; LAPAROSCOPIC HEMINEPHRECTOMY; BLADDER DYSFUNCTION; ECTOPIC URETEROCELE; CHILDREN; MANAGEMENT; DUPLICATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jpurol.2020.03.005
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
The Summary Introduction Duplex systems can be complicated by reflux, ureterocele, obstruction (most commonly PUJ in a lower moiety) and wetting secondary to an ectopic ureteric insertion in girls. The decision making algorithm for selection of surgical approach is complex and there is no consensus. The authors described the outcomes following an upper urinary tract approach in 2011(1) and now compare these results in a similar group of patients managed using a lower approach. Objectives To assess whether a top-down or bottom-up approach results in different likelihoods for further surgery. Study design A prospectively database was maintained for consecutive patients undergoing surgery for duplex systems by a single surgeon between 2003 and 2015. Patients were classified into 2 groups; Group 1 initial intention for upper urinary tract approach (heminephroureterectomy-HN) or Group 2 lower urinary tract approach (bladder reconstructive surgeryBRS). The requirement for further surgery was recorded-endoscopic incision (EI), bladder reconstructive surgery (BRS), endoscopic correction of reflux (ECR), heminephroureterectomy (HN). Indications for initial and subsequent surgery included urinary tract infection, VUJ obstruction and incontinence. Endoscopic incision was not performed for patients with an asymptomatic ureterocele. Statistical analysis consisted of Fisher's exact test with a 2 tail p value < 0.05 being statistically significant. Results 79 patients underwent surgery for duplex systems. 39 patients had HN initially (Group 1) and 40 patients had BRS initially (Group 2). Further surgery was performed in 21% of patients from Group 1 (8 BRS) vs 5% of patients from Group 2 (1 redo BRS, 1 ECR). Significantly less additional surgical procedures were performed after BRS compared to HN (p = 0.048). The presence of both reflux and ureterocele increases the chances of further surgery in those patients who had HN initially compared to BRS (p = 0.01). No patients developed urinary retention or required intermittent catheterisation to improve bladder emptying. Conclusions Bladder reconstructive surgery (BRS) reduces the requirement for further surgery compared to heminephroureterectomy (HN) in symptomatic patients with a duplex kidney and either dilating vesicoureteric reflux or ureterocele. [GRAPHICS]
引用
收藏
页码:387.e1 / 387.e8
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] TOP-DOWN MEETS BOTTOM-UP
    Lefaivre, Liane
    [J]. ARCHITECT, 2012, 101 (08): : 104 - 105
  • [12] Bottom-up and top-down mechanisms
    Pessa, E
    [J]. VISUAL ATTENTION MECHANISMS, 2002, : 61 - 68
  • [13] Combining bottom-up and top-down
    Boehringer, Christoph
    Rutherford, Thomas F.
    [J]. ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2008, 30 (02) : 574 - 596
  • [14] Top-down and bottom-up assessments
    Hackett, Janine
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY, 2010, 73 (04) : 189 - 189
  • [15] The ChPT: top-down and bottom-up
    Kampf, Karol
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS, 2021, 2021 (12)
  • [16] Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up
    Nisbet, Euan
    Weiss, Ray
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2010, 328 (5983) : 1241 - 1243
  • [17] The ChPT: top-down and bottom-up
    Karol Kampf
    [J]. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2021
  • [19] Top-Down and Bottom-Up: A Combined Approach to Slot Filling
    Chen, Zheng
    Tamang, Suzanne
    Lee, Adam
    Li, Xiang
    Passantino, Marissa
    Ji, Heng
    [J]. INFORMATION RETRIEVAL TECHNOLOGY, 2010, 6458 : 300 - +
  • [20] From a Top-Down to a Bottom-Up Approach to Legislative Oversight
    Friedberg, Chen
    [J]. JOURNAL OF LEGISLATIVE STUDIES, 2011, 17 (04): : 525 - 544