Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-tgq86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-06T14:23:03.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

42 - Upper tract dilation

from Part V - Urology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

By
Venkata R. Jayanthi  and
Stephen A. Koff
Edited by
Mark D. Stringer ,
Keith T. Oldham  and
Pierre D. E. Mouriquand
Venkata R. Jayanthi
Affiliation:
Division of Urology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Stephen A. Koff
Affiliation:
Division of Urology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Mark D. Stringer
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
Keith T. Oldham
Affiliation:
Children's Hospital of Wisconsin
Pierre D. E. Mouriquand
Affiliation:
Debrousse Hospital, Lyon
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In former years, the clinical management of upper tract dilation was simple. Because most children with hydronephrosis presented with a mass or a clinical problem such as infection or pain, it was assumed that the cause was an obstruction. Surgical treatment was performed and the outcome was usually satisfactory. The advent of prenatal ultrasonography and the resultant identification of large numbers of asymptomatic upper tract dilation has forced physicians to alter their understanding of the significance of hydronephrosis and to better define obstruction. This is largely because dilation often improves or resolves spontaneously, which questions the necessity of surgical treatment. Whereas in the past only few natural history studies were available, a greater appreciation of the spontaneous resolution of prenatally detected hydronephrosis has been gleaned from multiple studies from various centers around the world.

Any analysis of long-term outcomes of upper tract dilation management must of necessity deal separately with the symptomatic and asymptomatic varieties and must also recognize that dilation involving the kidney alone is different from dilation affecting kidney and ureter together. Accordingly, this chapter will be divided into two sections. The first will deal with pure hydronephrosis and consider the child with dilated renal collecting systems without ureteral dilation. The second portion will examine hydroureteronephrosis and dilation of both the renal collecting system and ureter.

Dilation of the renal collecting system is easily diagnosed on radiographic imaging studies. However, not all upper tract dilation is caused by obstruction.

Type
Chapter
Information
Pediatric Surgery and Urology
Long-Term Outcomes
 , pp. 533 - 539
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amarante, J., Anderson, P. J., & Gordon, I.Impaired drainage on diuretic renography using half-time or pelvic excretion efficiency is not a sign of obstruction in children with a prenatal diagnosis of unilateral renal pelvic dilatation. J. Urol. 2003; 169(5):1828–1831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vade, A., Dudiak, C., McCarry, P.et al. Resistive indices in the evaluation of infants with obstructive and nonobstructive pyelocaliectasis. J. Ultrasound Med. 1999; 18(5):357–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perez-Brayfield, M. R., Kirsch, A. J., Jones, R. A., & Grattan-Smith, J. D.A prospective study comparing ultrasound, nuclear scintigraphy and dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of hydronephrosis. J. Urol. 2003; 170(4 Pt 1):1330–1334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Homsy, Y. L., Tripp, B. M., Lambert, R.et al. The captopril renogram: a new tool for diagnosing and predicting obstruction in childhood hydronephrosis. J. Urol. 1998; 160(4):1446–1449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bajpai, M., Puri, A., Tripathi, M., & Maini, A.Prognostic significance of captopril renography for managing congenital unilateral hydronephrosis. J. Urol. 2002; 168(5):2158–2161; discussion 2161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mikkelsen, S. S., Rasmussen, B. S., Jensen, T. M.et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with hydronephrosis treated by Anderson–Hynes pyeloplasty. Br. J. Urol. 1992; 70(2):121–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Notley, R. G. & Beaugie, J. M.The long-term follow-up of Anderson–Hynes pyeloplasty for hydronephrosis. Br. J. Urol. 1973; 45(5):464–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cartwright, P. C., Duckett, J. W., Keating, M. A.et al. Managing apparent ureteropelvic junction obstruction in the newborn. J. Urol. 1992; 148(4):1224–1228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ransley, P. G., Dhillon, H. K., Gordon, I.et al. The postnatal management of hydronephrosis diagnosed by prenatal ultrasound. J. Urol. 1990; 144(2 Pt 2):584–587; discussion 593–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freedman, E. R. & Rickwood, A. M.Prenatally diagnosed pelviureteric junction obstruction: a benign condition?J. Pediatr. Surg. 1994; 29(6):769–772.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koff, S. A. & Campbell, K. D.The nonoperative management of unilateral neonatal hydronephrosis: natural history of poorly functioning kidneys. J. Urol. 1994; 152(2 Pt 2):593–595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onen, A., Jayanthi, V. R., & Koff, S. A.Long-term followup of prenatally detected severe bilateral newborn hydronephrosis initially managed nonoperatively. J. Urol. 2002; 168(3):1118–1120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ulman, I., Jayanthi, V. R., & Koff, S. A.The long-term followup of newborns with severe unilateral hydronephrosis initially treated nonoperatively. J. Urol. 2000; 164(3 Pt 2):1101–1105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, L. R., Coughlin, P. W., Bloch, E. C.et al. The case for immediate pyeloplasty in the neonate with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J. Urol. 1984; 132(4):725–728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dowling, K. J., Harmon, E. P., Ortenberg, J.et al. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: the effect of pyeloplasty on renal function. J. Urol. 1988; 140(5 Pt 2):1227–1230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salem, Y. H., Majd, M., Rushton, H. G.et al. Outcome analysis of pediatric pyeloplasty as a function of patient age, presentation and differential renal function. J. Urol. 1995; 154(5):1889–1893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacNeily, A. E., Maizels, M., Kaplan, W. E.et al. Does early pyeloplasty really avert loss of renal function? A retrospective review. J. Urol. 1993; 150(2 Pt 2):769–773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capolicchio, G., Leonard, M. P., Wong, C.et al. Prenatal diagnosis of hydronephrosis: impact on renal function and its recovery after pyeloplasty. J. Urol. 1999; 162(3 Pt 2):1029–1032.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chertin, B., Rolle, V., Farkhas, A., & Puri, P.et al. Does delaying pyeloplasty affect renal function in children with a prenatal diagnosis of pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction?BJU Int. 2002; 90(1):72–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandrasekharam, V. V., Srinivas, M., Bal, C. S.et al. Functional outcome after pyeloplasty for unilateral symptomatic hydronephrosis. Pediatr. Surg. Int. 2001; 17(7):524–527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chertin, B., Fridmans, A., Knizhnik, M.et al. Does early detection of ureteropelvic junction obstruction improve surgical outcome in terms of renal function?J. Urol. 1999; 162(3 Pt 2):1037–1040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Subramaniam, R., Kouriefs, C. & Dickson, A. P.Antenatally detected pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction: concerns about conservative management. BJU Inte. 1999; 84(3):335–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cornford, P. A. & Rickwood, A. M.Functional results of pyeloplasty in patients with ante-natally diagnosed pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Br. J. Urol. 1998; 81(1):152–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, L. S., Maizels, M., Cartwright, P. C.et al. Surgery versus observation for managing obstructive grade 3 to 4 unilateral hydronephrosis: a report from the Society for Fetal Urology. J. Urol. 1998; 159(1):222–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elder, J. S.et al. Renal histological changes secondary to ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J. Urol. 1995; 154(2 Pt 2):719–722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stock, J. A., Krons, H. F., Hefferman, J.et al. Correlation of renal biopsy and radionuclide renal scan differential function in patients with unilateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J. Urol. 1995; 154(2 Pt 2):716–718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amling, C. L., O'Hara, S. M., Werner, J. S.et al. Renal ultrasound changes after pyeloplasty in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: long-term outcome in 47 renal units. J. Urol. 1996; 156(6):2020–2024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Homsy, Y., Saad, F., Laberge, I.et al. Pyeloplasty: to divert or not to divert?Urology 1980; 16(6):577–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pesce, C., Campobasso, P., Costin, L.et al. Ureterovascular hydronephrosis in children: is pyeloplasty always necessary?Eur. Urol. 1999; 36(1):71–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodrigues, Netto N. Jr., Ikari, O., Esteves, S. C., & D'Ancona, C. A.Antegrade endopyelotomy for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in children. Br. J. Urol. 1996; 78(4):607–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figenshau, R. S., Clayman, R. V., Colberg, J. W.et al. Pediatric endopyelotomy: the Washington University experience. J. Urol. 1996; 156(6):2025–2030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capolicchio, G., Homsy, Y. L., Houle, A. M.et al. Long-term results of percutaneous endopyelotomy in the treatment of children with failed open pyeloplasty. J. Urol. 1997; 158(4):1534–1537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeung, C. K., Tam, Y. H., Sihoe, J. D.et al. Retroperitoneoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in infants and children. BJU Inte. 2001; 87(6):509–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, H. L.Laparoscopic Anderson–Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children. J. Urol. 1999; 162(3 Pt 2):1045–1047; discussion 1048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baskin, L. S., Zderic, S. A., Snyder, H. M., & Duckett, J. W.Primary dilated megaureter: long-term followup. J. Urol. 1994; 152(2 Pt 2):618–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, H. Y., Dhillon, H. K., Yeung, C. K.et al. Clinical outcome and management of prenatally diagnosed primary megaureters. J. Urol. 1994; 152(2 Pt 2):614–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cozzi, F., Madonna, L., Maggi, E.et al. Management of primary megaureter in infancy. J. Pediatr. Surg. 1993; 28(8):1031–1033.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLellan, D. L., Retik, A. B., Bauer, S. B.et al. Rate and predictors of spontaneous resolution of prenatally diagnosed primary nonrefluxing megaureter. J. Urol. 2002; 168(5):2177–2180; discussion 2180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shenoy, M. U. & Rance, C. H.Is there a place for the insertion of a JJ stent as a temporizing procedure for symptomatic partial congenital vesico-ureteric junction obstruction in infancy?BJU Int. 1999; 84(4):524–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfister, R. C. & Hendren, W. H.Primary megaureter in children and adults. Clinical and pathophysiologic features of 150 ureters. Urology 1978; 12(2):160–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalicinski, Z. H., Kansy, J., Kotarbinska, B., & Joszt, W.Surgery of megaureters – modification of Hendren's operation. J. Pediatr. Surg. 1977; 12(2):183–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perdzynski, W. & Kalicinski, Z. H.Long-term results after megaureter folding in children. J. Pediatr. Surg. 1996; 31(9):1211–1217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Starr, A.Ureteral plication. A new concept in ureteral tailoring for megaureter. Invest. Urol. 1979; 17(2):153–158.Google ScholarPubMed
Bakker, H. H., Scholtmeijer, R. J., & Klopper, P. J.Comparison of 2 different tapering techniques in megaureters. J. Urol. 1988; 140(5 Pt 2):1237–1239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehrlich, R. M.The ureteral folding technique for megaureter surgery. J. Urol. 1985; 134(4):668–670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×