Cargando…
Outcomes of Extravesical Versus Intravesical Ureteral Reimplantation
Purpose: The purpose of our study was to examine outcomes and compare length of stay after extravesical and intravesical ureteral reimplantation at our institution. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review was performed of 30 patients (55 ureters) with vesicoureteral reflux who underwent either t...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
TheScientificWorldJOURNAL
2004
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5956395/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29861673 http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2004.68 |
_version_ | 1783323882868965376 |
---|---|
author | McMann, Leah P. Joyner, Byron D. |
author_facet | McMann, Leah P. Joyner, Byron D. |
author_sort | McMann, Leah P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Purpose: The purpose of our study was to examine outcomes and compare length of stay after extravesical and intravesical ureteral reimplantation at our institution. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review was performed of 30 patients (55 ureters) with vesicoureteral reflux who underwent either the Cohen (intravesical) cross-trigonal procedure or the extravesical (detrusorrhaphy) approach. Each patient had documented follow-up consisting of a postoperative renal ultrasound and/or a voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG). Inclusion criteria was the presence of primary vesicoureteral reflux. Exclusion criteria were patients who had undergone a previous repair and patients in whom results of neither the renal ultrasound nor the VCUG were available. Results: There were no significant cases of obstruction or wound infection with either approach. Two patients who underwent the extravesical approach had persistent reflux on VCUG three months postoperatively, but both resolved by fifteen months. Average length of stay was only 3.00 ± 1.33 days for the extravesical approach, compared to 5.36 ± 1.75 days for the intravesical approach ( P = .0003 ). Conclusions: Given that by fifteen months success rates were the same with either approach, the extravesical approach is comparable to the intravesical technique and is a viable option in terms of outcome and economics given the shorter length of hospital stay. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5956395 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2004 |
publisher | TheScientificWorldJOURNAL |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59563952018-06-03 Outcomes of Extravesical Versus Intravesical Ureteral Reimplantation McMann, Leah P. Joyner, Byron D. ScientificWorldJournal Research Article Purpose: The purpose of our study was to examine outcomes and compare length of stay after extravesical and intravesical ureteral reimplantation at our institution. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review was performed of 30 patients (55 ureters) with vesicoureteral reflux who underwent either the Cohen (intravesical) cross-trigonal procedure or the extravesical (detrusorrhaphy) approach. Each patient had documented follow-up consisting of a postoperative renal ultrasound and/or a voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG). Inclusion criteria was the presence of primary vesicoureteral reflux. Exclusion criteria were patients who had undergone a previous repair and patients in whom results of neither the renal ultrasound nor the VCUG were available. Results: There were no significant cases of obstruction or wound infection with either approach. Two patients who underwent the extravesical approach had persistent reflux on VCUG three months postoperatively, but both resolved by fifteen months. Average length of stay was only 3.00 ± 1.33 days for the extravesical approach, compared to 5.36 ± 1.75 days for the intravesical approach ( P = .0003 ). Conclusions: Given that by fifteen months success rates were the same with either approach, the extravesical approach is comparable to the intravesical technique and is a viable option in terms of outcome and economics given the shorter length of hospital stay. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL 2004-08-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5956395/ /pubmed/29861673 http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2004.68 Text en Copyright © 2004 Leah P. McMann and Byron D. Joyner. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article McMann, Leah P. Joyner, Byron D. Outcomes of Extravesical Versus Intravesical Ureteral Reimplantation |
title | Outcomes of Extravesical Versus Intravesical Ureteral Reimplantation |
title_full | Outcomes of Extravesical Versus Intravesical Ureteral Reimplantation |
title_fullStr | Outcomes of Extravesical Versus Intravesical Ureteral Reimplantation |
title_full_unstemmed | Outcomes of Extravesical Versus Intravesical Ureteral Reimplantation |
title_short | Outcomes of Extravesical Versus Intravesical Ureteral Reimplantation |
title_sort | outcomes of extravesical versus intravesical ureteral reimplantation |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5956395/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29861673 http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2004.68 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mcmannleahp outcomesofextravesicalversusintravesicalureteralreimplantation AT joynerbyrond outcomesofextravesicalversusintravesicalureteralreimplantation |