The influence of ureteral orifice configuration on the success rate of endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux


Department of Urology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran


Background: To investigate the effect of polyacrylate polyalcohol copolymer (Vantris) injection for the correction of VUR in children according to ureteral orifice shape and VUR grade.
Materials and Methods: Forty children (29 girls and 11 boys) with 61 renal refluxing units (RRU) and primary VUR underwent endoscopic correction of their reflux, using Vantris. Under general anesthesia, routine cystoscopy was performed and ureteral orifice configuration and dynamic hydro distention grade were determined. The injection technique was STING, HIT or a combination of them. Ultrasound scan was performed one and 3 months after injection and radionuclide cystography (RNC) was performed 3 months after the operation.
Results: The mean volume of injected Vantris was 0.62 cc. Reflux was corrected in 52 (85.2%) of the 61 RRU after single injection and this equates reflux correction in 37 of the 40 patients. No significant correlation was observed between ureteral orifice shape and VUR correction rate.
Conclusions: Our results showed that there was no correlation between the ureteral orifice configuration and the success rate of endoscopic surgery for VUR in short term.


1. Chertin B, Arafeh WA, Zeldin A, Kocherov S. Preliminary data on endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteric reflux with polyacrylate polyalcohol copolymer (Vantris®): Surgical outcome following single injection. J Pediatr Urol 2011; 7:654-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
2. Molitierno J, Scherz H, Kirsch A. Endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux using dextranomer hyaluronic acid copolymer. J Pediatr Urol 2008; 4:221, Epub 2008 Mar 5.  Back to cited text no. 2
3. Ormaechea M, Ruiz E, Denes E, Gimenez F, Dénes FT, Moldes J, et al. New tissue bulking agent (polyacrylate polyalcohol) for treating vesicoureteral reflux: Preliminary results in children. J Urol 2010; 183:714-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
4. Yücel S, Tarcan T, Simºek F. Durability of a single successful endoscopic polytetrafluoroethylene injection for primary vesicoureteral reflux: 14-year follow-up results. J Urol 2007; 178:265-8.  Back to cited text no. 4
5. Kajbafzadeh AM, Habibi Z, Tajik P. Endoscopic subureteral urocol injection for the treatment of vesicoureteral reflux. J Urol 2006; 175:1480-3.  Back to cited text no. 5
6. O'Donnell B, Puri P. Treatment of vesicoureteric reflux by endoscopic injection of Teflon. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984; 289:7-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
7. Kirsch AJ, Perez-Brayfield M, Smith EA, Scherz HC. The modified sting procedure to correct vesicoureteral reflux: Improved results with submucosal implantation within the intramural ureter. J Urol 2004; 171:2413-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
8. Lavelle MT, Conlin MJ, Skoog SJ. Subureteral injection of deflux for correction of reflux: Analysis of factors predicting success. Urology 2005; 65:564-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
9. Chertin B, Kocherov S, Chertin L, Natsheh A, Farkas A, Shenfeld OZ, et al. Endoscopic bulking materials for the treatment of vesicoureteral reflux: A review of our 20 years of experience and review of the literature. Adv Urol 2011; 2011:309626.  Back to cited text no. 9
10. Lyon RP, Marshall S, Tanagho EA. The ureteral orifice: Its configuration and competency. J Urol 1969; 102:504-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
11. Kirsch AJ, Kaye JD, Cerwinka WH, Watson JM, Elmore JM, Lyles RH, et al. Dynamic hydro distention of ureteral orifice: A novel grading system with high interobserver concordance and correlation with vesicoureteral reflux grade. J Urol 2009; 182:1688-92.  Back to cited text no. 11
12. Trsinar B, Cotic D, Oblak C. Possible causes of unsuccessful endoscopic collagen treatment of vesicoureteric reflux in children. Eur Urol 1999; 36:635-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
13. Chertin B, Kocherov S. Long-term results of endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteric reflux with different tissue-augmenting substances. J Pediatr Urol 2010;6:251-6  Back to cited text no. 13