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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McMann, Leah P., Joyner, Byron D.
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