The effect of location of the ureteric orifice on the efficacy of endoscopic injection to correct vesico-ureteric reflux.

Abstract

To review our 11-year experience and identify the mechanisms responsible for the failure of endoscopic injection for vesico-ureteric reflux (VUR) with three different injectable agents, based on the location of the ureteric orifice on endoscopy. We retrospectively reviewed the charts and endoscopic video-photographs of 46 patients (26 girls, 20 boys, median age 6 years, range 2-16) with VUR treated once or twice by subureteric injection with PTFE, or polydimethylsiloxane or dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer, from 1992 to 2003. Five patients were lost to follow-up and six ectopic and/or duplicated ureters were excluded from the analysis; in all, 52 ureters were analysed. According to the international classification, the VUR was grades I to V in four (8%), 12 (23%), 16 (31%), 13 (25%) and seven (13%) ureters, respectively. After 3 months, voiding cysto-urethrography showed that VUR continued in six of 19, seven of 12 and eight of 21 ureters (38%), respectively, after subureteric PTFE, polydimethylsiloxane and dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer injection; after the second injection, reflux continued in two of six, four of seven and three of eight ureters, respectively. Mound displacement and/or volume loss was the most common failure with all three bulking agents after both the first (62%) and second injections (44%) (P < 0.05). The first injection failed in 32% (11 of 35) normally located ureters and 10 of 17 lateral ureters (P < 0.05). The second injection failed in 11% (four of 35) normal and five of 17 lateral ureters (P < 0.05). A lateral ureteric orifice may decrease the efficacy of endoscopic injection, as the likelihood of a faulty injection is greater. However, a more careful second injection decreases the failure rate, particularly in those with low- to medium-grade refluxing ureters.