DMSA Bulguları Primer Vezikoüreteral Reflülü Çocuklarda Sting Prosedürünün Başarısızlığını Önceden Belirleyen Bir Faktör Müdür? 132 Olgunun Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Vezikoüreteral reflülü (VUR) olgularda endoskopik tedavi komplikasyonsuz, kolay uygulanabilir ve tekrarlanabilir olması nedeni ile pek çok hastada ilk tedavi seçeneği olarak görülmektedir. VUR’lu olgularda DMSA sintigrafi sonuçları ile idrar yolu enfeksiyonunun tekrarlaması arasında ilişki olduğu yapılan çalışmalarda gösterilmiştir. Çalışmamızda primer VUR’lu olgularda DMSA ile belirlenen renal fonksiyonlar ile STING uygulamasının başarısı arasında ilişki olup olmadığının araştırılması amaçlandı. Materyal ve Metod: Kliniğimizde 2002 ile 2009 yılları arasında primer VUR nedeni ile STING uygulaması yapılan 132 olgu hastane kayıtlarından geriye dönük olarak değerlendirmeye alındı. Bu araştırmada olguların yaşı, cinsiyeti, reflünün tek ya da çift taraflı olması, reflünün derecesi, başvuru anındaki bulguları ve ilk DMSA sintigrafi bulgusundaki hasarlanma derecesi ile STING uygulaması ile VUR iyileşmesi arasındaki ilişki araştırıldı. Bulgular: Çalışmamıza yaşları 5 ay ile 16 yaş (ortalama 6.59+3.23) arasında değişen 36 erkek (%27), 96 kız (%73) toplam 132 olgu alındı. 113 olgumuz (%86) tekrarlayan idrar yolu enfeksiyonu yakınması ile başvururken, 14 (%10) olgu enürezis nedeni ile yapılan araştırma sırasında, 5 olgu (%4) prenatal saptanan hidronefroz bulgusunun araştırılması sırasında tanı aldı. Reflü 62 (%47) olguda bilateral, 29 olguda (%22) sağ, 41 olguda (%31) sol tarafta belirlendi. 132 olguda toplam 194 üreterde reflü saptandı. Başlangıçta 10 olguda grade 2 VUR ( %5.1), 79 olguda grade 3 VUR (%40.8), 63 olguda grade 4 VUR (%32.4), 42 olguda grade 5 (%21.7) VUR saptandı. İlk enjeksiyon sonrası 105 üreterde iyileşme saptandı (%54.68). İkinci enjeksiyon 82 üretere uygulandı. İkinci enjeksiyon sonrası 22 üreterde iyileşme saptandı. 50 olguya yapılan üçüncü enjeksiyon sonrası 11 üreterde daha iyileşme izlendi. Başlangıçta %54.68 olan başarı oranı, tekrarlanan enjeksiyonlar ile % 71.13’e kadar ulaştı. 24 olgumuzdaki 32 üretere STING uygulamasına yanıt alınamadığı için açık cerrahi girişim uygulandı. 19 olguda (%14) DMSA sintigrafisi normal iken, 113 olguda (%86) anormal olarak bulundu. STING ile iyileşen ya da açık cerrahi uygulamasına alınan olgularımız yaş, cinsiyet, VUR’un tek yada bilateral olması, başlangıç bulguları ve başlangıç DMSA bulguları açısından karşılaştırıldığında anlamlı herhangi bir fark bulunmadı. Reflü derecesi ile STING sonrası iyileşme arasında ise negatif corelasyon mevcuttu (p<0.001). Aynı grade’deki olgularda DMSA bulguları arasındaki farkın STING uygulamasına yanıtı etkilemediği görüldü (p>0.05). Sonuç: Ortalama 42 aylık izlem sonuçlarının irdelendiği serimizde endoskopik ilk enjeksiyon sonrası üreterlerin % 54’ünde reflünün iyileştiği saptanırken, üçüncü enjeksiyon sonrası bu oranın % 71’e yükseldiği görüldü. Bu çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre STING uygulaması ile reflünün düzelmesinde anlamlı olan tek parametre reflünün derecesi olduğu ve başlangıç DMSA incelemesinde saptanan fonksiyon bozukluğu ile STING uygulaması başarısı arasında herhangi bir ilişki olmadığı saptandı.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Vezikoüreteral reflü, DMSA

MAY DMSA FINDINGS BE PREDICTIVE OF STING PROCEDURE FAILURE IN CHILDREN WITH PRIMARY VESICOURETERAL REFLUX? (AN EVALUATION OF 132 CASES)

Öz

Purpose: Endoscopic treatment seems to be the first choice of therapy in most of the patients with vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) since it is easily applicable and repeatable without complication. Existence of relation between the DMSA results and recurrence of urinary tract infection in cases with VUR has been demonstrated in previous studies. We aimed to search a relation between the renal functions set by DMSA and the success of STING procedure in patients with primary VUR.Material And Method: 132 patients on whom STING procedure has been applied for primary VUR at our clinic between the years 2002 to 2009 were evaluated retrospectively in this study. Initial findings of DMSA scintigraphy of the patients in relation to scarring degree at the hospital admission and their improvement after STING procedure were evaluated.Findings: 132 cases were included in our study consisting of 36 (27%) males and 96 females (73%) in between the ages of 5 months to 16 years (mean 6,59±3,23). 113 cases (86%) referred for the complaints of recurrent urinary tract infection, 14 cases (10%) had enuresis and 5 cases (4%) diagnosed as prenatal hydronephrosis. VUR was detected in 194 ureters of the 132 patients. VUR was bilateral in 62 (47%) patients, on the right side in 29 (22%) patients and on the left side in 41 (31%) patients. Initially, grade II VUR in 10 (5, 1%) cases, grade III VUR in 79 (40,8%), grade IV VUR in 63 (32,4%) cases and grade V VUR in 42 (21,7%) cases were confirmed. Recovery was determined in 105 (54,68%) ureters after the first injection. Second injection was applied to 82 ureters resulting with recovery in 22 ureters. Additional recovery was achieved in 11 ureters after the application of third injection to 50 patients. Thus the initial success rate of 54,68% reached to a success rate of 71,13% with repeated injections. Open surgery was applied to 32 ureters of 24 patients in whom no positive response was noted after STING procedure. DMSA findings were normal in 19 (14%) patients and abnormal in 113 (86%) patients at the initial hospital admission. A significant negative correlation was detected between the grade of VUR and the recovery after STING procedure (p>0,001). DMSA findings were not predictive in the success of STING procedure in children with primary VUR on the same degree category (p>0,05).Conclusion: Follow-up results are evaluated on an average of 42 month period in our study. VUR was treated in 54% of the ureters following the first injection and the recovery rate reached to 71% after the third injection. The results of this study revealed that the single meaningful parameter in estimating the recovery by STING application is the degree of VUR. There was no correlation between the initial DMSA findings and the success of STING procedure

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Vesicoureteral reflux, DMSA

Kaynakça

1. Smellie JM, Ransley PG, Normand IC, Prescod N, Edwards D. Development of new renal scars: a collaborative study. Br Med J 1985;290(6486):1957-60.
2. Bellinger MF, Duckett JW. Vesicoureteral reflux: a comparison of non-surgical and surgical management. Contrib Nephrol 1984;39:81-93.
3. Zhang Y, Bailey RR. A long term follow up of adults with reflux nephropathy. N Z Med J 1995;108(998):142-4. % 100 96.2 2 55.5 4 2 40.4 71.1 22 11
4. Marra G, Oppezzo C, Ardission G, Dacco V, Testa S, Avilio L et al. Severe vesicoureteral reflux and chronic renal failure: a condition peculiar to male gender? Data from the Ital Kid Project. J Pediatr 2004;144(5):677-81.
5. Gleeson FV, Gordon I. Imaging in urinary tract infection. Arch Dis Child 1991;66(1):1282-3.
6. Medical versus surgical treatment of primary vesicoureteral reflux: report of the International Reflux Study Committee. Pediatrics, 1981;67(3):392-400.
7. Weiss R, Duckett J, Spitzer A. Results of a randomized clinical trial of medical versus surgical management of infants and children with grade III and IV primary vesicoureteral reflux (United States). The International Reflux Study in Children. J Urol, 1992;148(5 PT 2):1667-73.
8. Elder JS, Peters CA, Arant BS Jr, Ewalt DH, Hawtrey CE, Hurwitz RS, Parrott TS, Snyder HM 3 rd, Weiss RA, Woolf SH, Hasselblad V. Pediatric Vesicoureteral Reflux Guidelines Panel summary re- port on the management of primary vesicoureteral reflux in chil- dren. J Urol 1997;157(5):1846-51.

9. O’Donnell B, Puri P. Treatment of vesicoureteral reflux by endo- scopic injection of Teflon Br Med J 1984;289(6436):7-9.
10. Lackgren G, Wahlin N, Sköldenberg E, Stenberg A. Long-term followup of children treated with dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer for vesicoureteral reflux. J Urol 2001; 166(5):1887-92.
11. Cappoza N, Lais A, Nappo S, Caione P. The role of endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux: a 17-year Experince. J Urol 2004;172(4 PT 2):1626-28.
12. Puri P, Chertin B, Velayudham M, Dass L, Colhoun E. Treatment of vesicoureteral reflux by endoscopic injection of dextranomer/ hyaluronic Acid copolymer: preliminary results. J Urol 2003;170(4 PT 2):1541-4.
13. Perez-Brayfield M, Kirsch AJ, Hensle TW, Koyle MA, Furnerr P, Scherz HC. Endoscopic treatment with dextranomer/hyaluronic acid for complex cases of vesicoureteral reflux. J Urol 2004 172(4 PT 2):1614-6.
14. Kirsch AJ, Perez-Brayfield M, Scherz HC. Minimally invasive treatment of vesicoureteral reflux with endoscopic injection of dex- tranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer: the Children’s Hospitals of Atlanta experience. J Urol 2003;170(1):211-5.
15. Herz D, Hafez A, Bagli D, Capolicchio G, McLorie G, Khoury A. Efficacy of endoscopic subureteral polydimethylsiloxane injection for treatment of vesicoureteral reflux in children. a North American clinical report. J Urol 2001;166(5):1880-6.
16. Yucel S, Gupta A, Snodgrass W. Multivariate analysis of factors predicting success with dextranomer/ hyaluronic acid injection for vesicoureteral reflux. J Urol 2007;177(4): 1505-9.
17. Shiraishi K, Yoshino K, Watanabe M, Matsuyama H, Tanikaze S. Risk Factors for breakthrough infection in children with primary vesicoureteral reflux. J Urol 2010;183(4); 1527-32.
18. Mıngın GC, Nguyen TH, Baskın SL. Abnormal dımercapto-succınıc acıd scans predıct an increased rısk of breakthrough infectıon in chıldren wıth vesıcoureteral reflux. J Urol 2004;172(3):1075–7.
19. Tekgül S, Riedmiller H, Gerharz E, Hoebeke P, Kocvara R, Nij- man R, Radmayr Chr, Stein R Guidelines on Paediatric Urology. European Society for Paediatric Urology, European Association of Urology 2009:11-2.
20. Sjöström S, Sillén U, Jodal U, Sameby L, Sixt R and Stokland E. Predictive Factors for resolution of congenital high grade vesi- coureteral reflux in infants: results of univariate and multivariate analyses J Urol 2010;183(3):1177-84.
21. Nepple KG, Knudson MJ, Austin JC, Cooper CS. Abnormal renal scans and decreased early resolution of low grade vesicoureteral reflux. J Urol 2008;180(4):1643-7.
22. Lebowitz RL, Olbing H, Parkkulainen KV, Smellie JM, Tamminen- Möbius TE. International system of radiographic grading of vesi- coureteric reflux. International Reflux Study in Children. Pediatr Radiol 1985;15(2):105-9.
23. Puri P, Mohanan N, Menezes M, Colhoun E. Endoscopic treat- ment of moderate and high grade vesicoureteral reflux in infants us- ing dextranomer/Hyaluronic acid. J Urol 2007;178(4 pt2): 1714-7.
24. Smellie JM, Barratt TM, Chantler C, Gordon I, Prescod NP, Rans- ley PG, et al. Medical versus surgical treatment in children with severe bilateral vesicoureteric reflux and bilateral nephropathy: a randomised trial. Lancet 2001;357(9265):1329-33.
25. Chertin B and Puri P. Familial vesicoureteral reflux. J Urol 2003;169(5):1804-8.
26. Cooper CS, Chung BI, Kirsch AJ, Canning DA, Snyder HM. The outcome of stopping prophylactic antibiotics in older children with vesicoureteral reflux. J Urol 2000; 163(1):269 -73.
27. Connolly LP, Treves ST, Connolly SA, Zurakowski D, Share JC, Bar-Sever Z,et al. Vesicoureteral reflux in children: incidence and severity in siblings. J Urol 1997;157(6): 2287-90.
28. McLorie GA, McKenna PH, Jumper BM, Churchill BM, Gilmovi RF, Khoury AE. High grade vesicoureteral reflux analysis of obser- vation therapy. J Urol 1990;144(2PT 2):537-40.
29. Cappozza N, Lais A, Matarazzo E, Nappo S, Patricolo M, Caione P. Treatment of vesicoureteric reflux: a new algorithm based on parental preference. BJU Int 2003;92(3): 285-8.
30. Puri P,Granata C. Multicentre survey of endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux using polytetrafluoroethylene. J Urol 1998;160(3 PT 2):1007-11.
31. Cappozza N, Caione P.Dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer implantation for vesicoureteral reflux: a randomised comparison with antibiotic prophylaxis. J Pediatr 2002; 140(2):230-4.
32. Elder JS, Diaz M, Caldamone AA, Cendron M, Greenfield S, Hur- witz R et al: Endoscopic therapy for vesicoureteral reflux: a meta- analysis. I. Reflux resolution and urinary tract infection. J Urol 2006;175(2):716-22.
33. Herndon CD, DeCambre M, McKenna PH. Changing concepts concerning the management of vesicoureteral reflux. J Urol 2001;166(4):1439-43.
34. Goldman M, Bistritzer T, Horne T, Zoareft I, Aladjem M. The etiol- ogy of renal scars in infants with pyelonephritis and vesicoureteral reflux. Pediatr Nephrol 2000;14(5):385-8.
35. Soylu A, Demir BK, Türkmen M, Bekem O, Saygi M, Cakmakçi H. Predictors of renal scar in children with urinary infection and vesicoureteral reflux. Pediatr Nephrol 2008;23(12): 2227-32.