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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Leah P. McMann, Byron D. Joyner
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi Limited 2004-01-01
Series:The Scientific World Journal
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2004.68
id doaj-3ce139ecfd6a4b81a81b6d4f04914271
record_format Article
spelling doaj-3ce139ecfd6a4b81a81b6d4f049142712020-11-24T21:26:05ZengHindawi LimitedThe Scientific World Journal1537-744X2004-01-01419519710.1100/tsw.2004.68Outcomes of Extravesical Versus Intravesical Ureteral ReimplantationLeah P. McMann0Byron D. Joyner1Department of Surgery, Urology Service, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, WA 98431, USADepartment of Surgery, Urology Service, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, WA 98431, USAPurpose: 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2004.68
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Leah P. McMann
Byron D. Joyner
spellingShingle Leah P. McMann
Byron D. Joyner
Outcomes of Extravesical Versus Intravesical Ureteral Reimplantation
The Scientific World Journal
author_facet Leah P. McMann
Byron D. Joyner
author_sort Leah P. McMann
title Outcomes of Extravesical Versus Intravesical Ureteral Reimplantation
title_short 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_sort outcomes of extravesical versus intravesical ureteral reimplantation
publisher Hindawi Limited
series The Scientific World Journal
issn 1537-744X
publishDate 2004-01-01
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.
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2004.68
work_keys_str_mv AT leahpmcmann outcomesofextravesicalversusintravesicalureteralreimplantation
AT byrondjoyner outcomesofextravesicalversusintravesicalureteralreimplantation
_version_ 1725981087784501248