Risk factors for recurrenсe of hydronephrosis in children

Introduction. Relapse after radical correction of congenital hydronephrosis (CH) in children occurs in 5–11% of cases. However, the predictors of repeated obstruction of the pyeloureteral segment (PUS) have not yet been sufficiently evaluated, which determines the relevance of the topic.

Aim: to detect the risk factors for recurrence of hydronephrosis in children to develop methods for its prevention.

Materials and methods. There were examined one hundred children with hydronephrosis divided into 2 groups. Group 1 consisted of 50 patients with recurrent hydronephrosis (RH), group 2 (control) — 50 children without RH with a comparable functional condition of the affected kidney. The analysis of the influence of pre-, intra- and postoperative parameters on the outcome of the primary intervention was carried out.

Results. During primary intervention in CH patients from group 1, we identified the following significant differences compared with patients of group 2: the use of non-resection pyeloplasty; a more extended stricture of the PUS; an indentation of less than 5 mm from the edge of stenosis; tension of the edges of the anastomosis due to insufficient mobilization; acute pyelonephritis during the early postoperative period. When the anastomosis tissues were stretched, only one type of urine drainage (internal or external) was performed in patients from group 1, and combined drainage was provided in patients of group 2.

Conclusion. To prevent recurrence of hydronephrosis in children, it is necessary to perform exclusively resection ureteropyeloplasty with adequate tissue mobilization and a wide margin from the edge of stenosis, use combined drainage when stretching the edges of the anastomosis and ensure the observation of operated children before moving to the adult network.

Contribution:
Petrova A.F., Kovarskiy S.L. — research concept and design of the study;
Petrova A.F., Matveenko E.N. — collection and processing of material;
Petrova A.F. — statistical processing, writing the text;
Kovarskiy S.L., Menovshchikova L.B. — editing the text.
All co-authors — approval of the final version of the article, responsibility for the integrity of all parts of the article.

Acknowledgment. The study had no sponsorship.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Received: November 07, 2024
Accepted: December 06, 2024
Published: December 25, 2024

1. Sizonov V.V., Shidaev A.Kh., Kogan M.I. Pyeloplasty effectiveness in cases of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: methodology and assessment parameters. Vestnik urologii. 2021; 9(4): 5–12. https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2021-9-4-5-12 https://elibrary.ru/wbaovj (in Russian)

2. Ceyhan E., Dogan H.S., Tekgul S. Our experience on management of failed pediatric pyeloplasty. Pediatr. Surg. Int. 2020; 36(8): 971–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-020-04699-9

3. Värelä S. Resolution of hydronephrosis after pyeloplasty in children. J. Pediatr. Urol. 2021; 1(17): 102.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2020.10.031

4. Alhazmi H.H. Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty among children: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. Urol. Ann. 2018; 4(10): 347–53. https://doi.org/10.4103/UA.UA_100_18

5. Nishi M., Tsuchida M., Ikeda M., Matsuda D., Iwamura M. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Long-term results. Int. J. Urol. 2015; 22(4): 368–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12686

6. Chandrasekharam V., Babu R. A systematic review and meta-analysis of open, conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic techniques for redo pyeloplasty for recurrent uretero pelvic junction obstruction in children. J. Pediatr. Urol. 2022; 18(5): 642–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2022.08.025

7. Zhang Y., Ouyang W., Xu H., Luan Y., Yang J., Lu Y., et al. Secondary management for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after pyeloplasty: a comparison of Re-Do Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty and conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Urol. Int. 2019; 103(4): 466–72. https://doi.org/10.1159/000503156

8. Ceyhan E., Ileri F., Ceylan T., Aydin A. Predictors of recurrence and complications in pediatric pyeloplasty. Urology. 2019; (126): 187–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.01.014

9. Babu R., Vittalraj P., Sundaram S., Manjusha M.P., Ramanan V., Sai V. Comparison of different pathological markers in predicting pyeloplasty outcomes in children. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2019; 55(8): 1616–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.08.015

10. Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J. Anaesth. 2019; 13(Suppl. 1): 31–4. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18

11. Kholmatova K.K., Grjibovski A.M. Case-control studies in medicine and public health. Ekologiya cheloveka. 2016; (8): 53–60. https://doi.org/10.33396/1728-0869-2016-8-53-60 https://elibrary.ru/widvgj (in Russian)

12. Onen A. An alternative grading system to refine the criteria for severity of hydronephrosis and optimal treatment guidelines in neonates with primary UPJ-type hydronephrosis. J. Pediatr. Urol. 2007; 3(3): 200–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2006.08.002

13. Dindo D., Demartines N., Clavien P.A. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann. Surg. 2004; 240(2): 205–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae

14. Komyakov B.K., Guliev B.G., Shibliev R.G. Pathophysiologycal changes in ureteropelvic junction obstruction (review). Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. Meditsina. 2010; (2): 189–94. https://elibrary.ru/mvzohf (in Russian)

15. Liu X., Huang C., Guo Y., Yue Y., Hong J. Comparison of DJ stented, external stented and stent-less procedures for pediatric pyeloplasty: A network meta-analysis. Int. J. Surg. 2019; 68: 126–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.07.001

16. Imam M.S., Al Farooq M.A., Sarwar M.K.A., Chowdhury T.K., Khastagir R., Habib M.G.A., et al. A comparison between short- and long-term D-J stent in Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Pediatr. Surg. Int. 2020; 36(11): 1363–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-020-04734-9

17. Bansal U.K., Dangle P.P., Stephany H., Durrani A., Cannon G., Schneck F.X., et al. Optimal length of follow-up for the detection of unsuccessful pediatric pyeloplasty: A single-center experience. Front. Pediatr. 2017; 5: 126. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2017.00126

18. Abdelwahab M., Abdelaziz A., Aboulela W., Shouman A.M., Ghoneima W., Shoukry A., et al. One week stenting after pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty; is it enough? J. Pediatr. Urol. 2020; 16(1): 98.e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.10.016

19. Gopal M., Peycelon M., Caldamone A., Chrzan R., El-Ghoneimi A., Olsen H., et al. Management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children – a roundtable discussion. J. Pediatr. Urol. 2019; 15(4): 322–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.05.010