title: [Long-term follow-up of the Le Duc-Camey antireflux technique].
abstract: BACKGROUND
  An effective ureteroileal reimplantation without reflux and obstruction is indispensable for lower urinary reconstruction or diversion using an ileal segment. Based on our earlier experience of afferent nipple valve malfunction of the Kock pouch, we performed Le Duc-Camey antireflux ureteroileal implantation. In the present study, we evaluated the long-term outcome of the Le Duc-Camey technique on the upper urinary tract in patients with a postoperative observation period of 2 years or more.
  
  
  METHODS
  From 1989 to 1994, 39 patients (73 ureters) underwent Le Duc-Camey technique for prevention of reflux of a Kock pouch. In 28 patients the ileal reservoir was connected to the skin for cutaneous urinary diversion, and in 11 it was connected to the urethra for lower urinary reconstruction. The ureters were implanted into the reservoir through the anterior wall window of the reservoir. In most patients, excretory urography (DIP) was performed once a year after the first year. Retrograde cystography or voiding cystourethrography was performed within 12 months postoperatively. After the first year, retrograde study was performed once during the follow-up period in the majority of the patients. The mean follow-up period was 44.8 months (range 24-71 months).
  
  
  RESULTS
  There was no urinary tract dilatation in 68 renal units (93.1%), while slight dilatation was noted in 3 (4.1%), moderate dilatation in 1 (1.4%), and marked dilatation due to stenosis of ureteroileal anastomosis in 1 (1.4%). Retrograde studies revealed absence of reflux in all patients. Another complication that related to this procedure was not observed in any patients.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We conclude that Le Duc-Camey technique is effective in reflux prevention and protection of the upper urinary tract, and recommend it for use with detubularized ileal reservoir.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Tokushima.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Yamamoto
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Naruo
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kagawa
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Yamamoto
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Sumitani
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Ohmori
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Hiraishi
authors.forename: N
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Sakurai
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Kuwahara
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000714:Anastomosis, Surgical / Q000379:methods; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007082:Ileum / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D016737:Proctocolectomy, Restorative; D011379:Prognosis; D001749:Urinary Bladder Neoplasms / Q000601:surgery; D014547:Urinary Diversion / Q000379:methods*