Author:
Ripatti Liisi,Viljamaa Hanna-Reeta,Suihko Anna,Pakkasjärvi Niklas
Abstract
Abstract
Objective
We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and complication rates of endoscopic high-pressure balloon dilatation (HPBD) in treating primary obstructive megaureter (POM) in children based on current literature. Specifically, we wanted to clarify the evidence on the use of HPBD in children under one year of age.
Methods
A systematic search of the literature was performed via several databases. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines were followed. The primary outcomes studied in this systematic review were the effectiveness of HBPD in relieving obstruction and reducing hydroureteronephrosis in children. The secondary outcome was to study the complication rate of endoscopic high-pressure balloon dilatation. Studies that reported one or both of these outcomes (n = 13) were considered eligible for inclusion in this review.
Results
HPBD significantly decreased both ureteral diameter (15.8 mm [range 2–30] to 8.0 mm [0–30], p = 0.00009) and anteroposterior diameter of renal pelvis (16.7 mm [0–46] to 9.7 mm [0–36], p = 0.00107). The success rate was 71% after one HPBD and 79% after two HPBD. The median follow-up time was 3.6 years (interquartile range 2.2–6.4 years). A complication rate of 33% was observed, but no Clavien–Dindo grade IV–V complications were reported. Postoperative infections and VUR were detected in 12% and 7.8% of cases, respectively. For children under one year of age, outcomes of HPBD seem to be similar to those in older children.
Conclusions
This study indicates that HPBD appears to be safe and can be used as the first-line treatment for symptomatic POM. Further comparative studies are needed addressing the effect of treatment in infants, and also long-term outcomes of the treatment. Due to the nature of POM, identifying those patients who will benefit from HPBD remains challenging.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Urology,Reproductive Medicine,General Medicine
Reference41 articles.
1. Braga LH, D’Cruz J, Rickard M, Jegatheeswaran K, Lorenzo AJ. The fate of primary nonrefluxing megaureter: a prospective outcome analysis of the rate of urinary tract infections, surgical indications and time to resolution. J Urol [Internet]. 2016;195(4):1300–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.11.049.
2. Dekirmendjian A, Braga LH. Primary non-refluxing megaureter: analysis of risk factors for spontaneous resolution and surgical intervention. Front Pediatr. 2019;7:1–7.
3. Rubenwolf P, Herrmann-Nuber J, Schreckenberger M, Stein R, Beetz R. Primary non-refluxive megaureter in children: single-center experience and follow-up of 212 patients. Int Urol Nephrol. 2016;48(11):1743–9.
4. DeFoor W, Minevich E, Reddy P, Polsky E, McGregor A, Wacksman J, et al. Results of tapered ureteral reimplantation for primary megaureter: Extravesical versus intravesical approach. J Urol. 2004;172(4 II):1640–3.
5. Angulo JM, Arteaga R, Rodríguez Alarcón J, Calvo MJ. Role of retrograde endoscopic dilatation with balloon and derivation using double pig-tail catheter as an initial treatment for vesico-ureteral junction stenosis in children. Cir Pediatr [Internet]. 1998;11(1):15–8.