Radiological Findings after Endoscopic Incision of Ureterocele.
10.3348/jkrs.2001.44.1.115
- Author:
Jung Eun CHEON
1
;
In One KIM
;
Eul Hye SEOK
;
Joo Hee CHA
;
Guk Myung CHOI
;
Woo Sun KIM
;
Kyung Mo YEON
;
Kwang Myung KIM
;
Hwang CHOI
Author Information
1. Department of Radiology and the Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Children, genitourinary system;
Ureter, enlarged;
Endoscopy;
Ureter, reflux;
Bladder, radiography
- MeSH:
Decompression;
Endoscopy;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Kidney;
Postoperative Period;
Retrospective Studies;
Ultrasonography;
Ureterocele*;
Urinary Tract;
Urinary Tract Infections;
Urography
- From:Journal of the Korean Radiological Society
2001;44(1):115-119
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Endoscopic incision of ureterocele is considered a simple and safe method for decompression of urinary tract obstruction above ureterocele. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the radiological findings after endoscopic incision of ureterocele. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the radiological findings ultrasonography (US), intravenous urography, and voiding cystourethrography(VCU)] in 16 patients with ureterocele who underwent endoscopic incision (mean age at surgery, 15 months; M: F=3:13; 18 ureteroceles). According to the postoperative results, treatment was classified as successful when urinary tract obstruction improved without additional treatment, partially successful when medical treatment was still required, and second operation when additional surgical treatment was required. RESULTS: Postoperative US (n=10) showed that in all patients, urinary tract obstruction was relieved: the kidney parenchyma was thicker and the ureterocele was smaller. Intravenous urography (n=8), demonstrated that in all patients, urinary tract obstruction and the excretory function of the kidney had improved. Postoperative VCU indicated that in 92% of patients (12 of 13), endoscopic incision of the ureterocele led to vesicoureteral reflux(VUR). Of these twelve, seven (58%) showed VUR of more than grade 3, while newly developed VUR was seen in five of eight patients (63%) who had preoperative VCU. Surgery was successful in four patients (25%), partially successful in three (19%), and a second operation-on account of recurrent urinary tract infection and VUR of more than grade 3 during the follow-up period was required by nine (56%). CONCLUSION: Although endoscopic incision of a ureterocele is a useful way of relieving urinary tract obstruction, an ensuing complication may be VUR. Postoperative US and intravenous urography should be used to evaluate parenchymal change in the kidney and improvement of urinary tract obstruction, while to assess the extent of VUR during the follow-up period, postoperative VCU is required.
