Pyeloplasty may reverse the effect of growth delay from ureteropelvic junction obstruction in infants.

Congenital hydronephrosis Growth delay Pediatrics Pyeloplasty Ureteropelvic junction obstruction

Journal

International urology and nephrology

ISSN: 1573-2584

Titre abrégé: Int Urol Nephrol

Pays: Netherlands

ID NLM: 0262521

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
22 Nov 2023

Historique:

received: 27 07 2023

accepted: 27 10 2023

medline: 22 11 2023

pubmed: 22 11 2023

entrez: 22 11 2023

Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To determine if children with UPJO demonstrate a clinically significant change in somatic growth following pyeloplasty. We retrospectively evaluated the growth chart data of infants with SFU grade 3 or 4 congenital hydronephrosis at our institution from 2015 to 2022. Of those, 35 patients underwent pyeloplasty and 66 had no surgical intervention. Patients met criteria if they had SFU 3 or 4 hydronephrosis and MAG3 renal scan. If patients underwent surgery, height and weight percentiles were recorded from the pre-op and 6-16-month follow-up visits. In non-surgery patients, measurements were taken near the median age of surgery in the intervention group and 6-16 months later. Interval changes in group height and weight percentiles are compared for significant changes. The surgery and non-surgery groups did not differ in terms of gender (71% vs 74% Male), starting age (296 vs 244 days), starting weight (58th vs 52nd percentile), or time between measurements (255 vs 260 days), though the surgery group had significantly less height in the pre-operative period (43rd vs 55th percentile, p = 0.050) and were more likely to have delayed drainage on renal scan (83% w/delay vs 35%). The surgery group showed a significant increase in height (18.9 percentiles; 95% CI 11-27) and weight (6.0 percentiles; 95% CI 0.50-12) after intervention. Patients with congenital hydronephrosis due to UPJO that underwent pyeloplasty showed a significant increase in weight and height at 6-16 months postoperatively compared to those that were managed with close observation. This suggests UPJO might lead to growth delay in infants.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1007/s11255-023-03870-0 PMID: 37991603

pubmed: 37991603

doi: 10.1007/s11255-023-03870-0

pii: 10.1007/s11255-023-03870-0

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

Informations de copyright

Références

Han SW, Lee SE, Kim JH, Jeong HJ, Rha KHO, Choi SK (1998) Does delayed operation for pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction cause histopathological changes? J Urol 160(3 part 2):984–988. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005392-199809020-00004

doi: 10.1097/00005392-199809020-00004 pubmed: 9719259

Arena S, Chimenz R, Antonelli E et al (2018) A long-term follow-up in conservative management of unilateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction with poor drainage and good renal function. Eur J Pediatr 177(12):1761–1765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-018-3239-2

doi: 10.1007/s00431-018-3239-2 pubmed: 30209594

Shokeir AA, El-Sherbiny MT, Gad HM et al (2005) Postnatal unilateral pelviureteral junction obstruction: impact of pyeloplasty and conservative management on renal function. Urology 65(5):980–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.12.065

doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.12.065 pubmed: 15882736

Davenport MT, Merguerian PA, Koyle M (2013) Antenatally diagnosed hydronephrosis: current postnatal management. Pediatr Surg Int 29(3):207–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-012-3258-4

doi: 10.1007/s00383-012-3258-4 pubmed: 23325322

Chalmers DJ, Siomos VJ, Gilsdorf DJ, Torok MR, Vemulakonda VM (2015) Factors associated with surgical intervention in children with high-grade congenital hydronephrosis. J Clin Urol 8(4):252–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051415814561333

doi: 10.1177/2051415814561333

Castillejos-Molina RA, Rodríguez-Covarrubias F, Feria-Bernal G, Gabilondo-Navarro F (2006) Surgical treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Gac Med Mex 142(3):205–208

pubmed: 16875348

Ozayar A, Friedlander JI, Shakir NA, Gahan JC, Cadeddu JA, Morgan MSC (2015) Equivocal ureteropelvic junction obstruction on diuretic renogram—should minimally invasive pyeloplasty be offered to symptomatic patients? J Urol 193(4):1278–1282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.100

doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.100 pubmed: 25444983

Tapia J, Gonzalez R (1995) Pyeloplasty improves renal function and somatic growth in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 154:218. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)67280-X

doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)67280-X pubmed: 7776433

Chandrasekharam VVSS, Srinivas M, Charles AR et al (2002) Urinary-tract infection affects somatic growth in unilateral symptomatic hydronephrosis. Pediatr Surg Int 18(5–6):451–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-002-0719-1

doi: 10.1007/s00383-002-0719-1 pubmed: 12415379

Chou JH, Roumiantsev S, Singh R (2020) PediTools electronic growth chart calculators: applications in clinical care, research, and quality improvement. J Med Internet Res 22(1):e16204. https://doi.org/10.2196/16204

doi: 10.2196/16204 pubmed: 32012066 pmcid: 7058170

Norman L, Coleman J, Macdonald I, Tomsett A, Watson A (2000) Nutrition and growth in relation to severity of renal disease in children. Pediatr Nephrol 15:259–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004670000465

doi: 10.1007/s004670000465 pubmed: 11149122

Duong HP, Piepsz A, Collier F et al (2013) Predicting the clinical outcome of antenatally detected unilateral pelviureteric junction stenosis. Urology 82(3):691–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.03.041

doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.03.041 pubmed: 23726167

Pavlaki A, Printza N, Farmaki E et al (2020) The role of urinary NGAL and serum cystatin C in assessing the severity of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in infants. Pediatr Nephrol 35(1):163–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-019-04349-w

doi: 10.1007/s00467-019-04349-w pubmed: 31606750

Kostic D, Beozzo GPNS, do Couto SB et al (2019) The role of renal biomarkers to predict the need of surgery in congenital urinary tract obstruction in infants. J Pediatr Urol 15(3):242.e1-242.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.03.009

doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.03.009 pubmed: 30979613