PD22-09 RESULTS OF VESICOURETERAL REFLUX TREATMENT WITH ENDOSCOPIC INJECTION OF BULKING AGENTS IN RENAL TRANSPLANT PATIENTS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyTransplantation & Vascular Surgery: Renal Transplantation & Vascular Surgery I (PD22)1 Apr 2020PD22-09 RESULTS OF VESICOURETERAL REFLUX TREATMENT WITH ENDOSCOPIC INJECTION OF BULKING AGENTS IN RENAL TRANSPLANT PATIENTS Affonso Piovesan*, Rogério Sayâo, Matheus Siqueira, Felipe Bernardes, and Willian Nahas Affonso Piovesan*Affonso Piovesan* More articles by this author , Rogério SayâoRogério Sayâo More articles by this author , Matheus SiqueiraMatheus Siqueira More articles by this author , Felipe BernardesFelipe Bernardes More articles by this author , and Willian NahasWillian Nahas More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000872.09AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Vesicoureteral Reflux (VUR) after renal transplants has been reported to be 3% to 50%. Recurrent urinary tract infections (UTI) with VUR into the transplanted kidney are associated with significantly decreased graft survival. The objective is to evaluate the success rate of VUR treatment in renal transplant patients using endoscopic injection of bulking agents. METHODS: From January 1998 to July 2018, 3468 renal transplants with extravesical ureterovesical anastomosis were performed at our institution. After an acute graft pyelonephritis episode, 31 patients (9 men, 22 women) were diagnosed with VUR and submitted to a bulking agent endoscopic injection. Median age was 39,6 years, 17 deceased and 14 living donors. Mean time between renal transplantation and injection was 1641 days and mean UTI episodes before treatment was 2,2. These patients were divided into two groups according to the grade of VUR: Group A: 14 patients with VUR grades I – III and group B: 17 patients with VUR grades IV – V. Clinical success was defined as absence of new UIT episodes. Radiological success was defined as resolution or decrease of RVU grade. The groups were compared using paired T-test and analysis performed with SPSS 19.0 software. Statistical significance was p < 0,05. RESULTS: Clinical success was obtained in 61,3% of the patients. There was a tendency, not statistically confirmed, of better results in group A compared to group B (71,4% vs 52,9%, p=0,293). Radiological success was similar in both groups (68,3% vs 70,6%). CONCLUSIONS: VUR treatment with bulking agents has a high rate of clinical and radiological success. It should be considered the first choice for treatment in these patients. Source of Funding: Non © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e462-e462 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Affonso Piovesan* More articles by this author Rogério Sayâo More articles by this author Matheus Siqueira More articles by this author Felipe Bernardes More articles by this author Willian Nahas More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...