title: Examining trends in the treatment of ureterocele yields no definitive solution.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The surgical management of ureteroceles is extremely variable. Some have hypothesized that if these patients were treated with 'definitive' staged surgical intervention, the need for further revision surgery would be eliminated.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The present study sought to determine if the rate of revision surgery differed among patients who have undergone different surgical approaches for the ureterocele complex.
  
  
  METHODS
  A large retrospective chart review was conducted, identifying all patients having undergone ureterocele surgery at a single institution over the past 41 years. The cohort was divided into four groups based on surgical approach: upper tract approach (UTA), lower tract reconstruction (LTR), simultaneous upper and lower tract approach (ULTA), and staged lower tract reconstruction (SLTR). Demographics, the presence of preoperative/postoperative VUR, postoperative morbidity and the need for revision surgery were compared using the Chi- squared test, Fisher's exact test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test (Bonferroni correction), logistic regression modeling and survival analyses (Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional Hazards regression with unplanned revision operation as the outcome event).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Between 1969 and 2010, 180 patients were identified as having undergone surgical management of ureteroceles, of which 120 had complete demographic data available for analysis. The median age at the time of initial surgical intervention was 5.8 months and the majority of patients (83.3%) were female. The median follow-up was 33.1 months. Surgical management was as follows: 18 (15.0%) patients underwent UTA, 47 (39.2%) underwent LTR, 23 (19.2%) underwent ULTA, and 32 (26.6%) underwent SLTR. Among these groups, the only difference in median age was between the LTR and SLTR groups (6.3 months vs 3.7 months, P=0.012). Additional revision surgery was required in: nine (50.0%) of UTA, ten (21.3%) of LTR, four (17.4%) of ULTA, and three (9.4%) of SLTR. The only statistically significant difference in unplanned revision surgery was noted in the UTA group versus each of the other groups with VUR as the predominant indication (88.9%). The likelihood of requiring revision surgery in comparison to the SLTR group was significantly increased in the UTA group (OR 9.67, CI 2.15-43.56), but not in the LTR (OR 2.61, CI 0.66-10.37) or the ULTA group (OR 2.04, CI 0.41-10.13). Obstruction, recurring UTIs and VUR were the main indications for revision surgery overall.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is a large body of literature examining the surgical management of ureteroceles. It most recently primarily focuses on an endoscopic approach to the lower tract. The present retrospective review examined the need for re-operative intervention by comparing four different surgical approaches, and found that there is no panacea. Although heminephrectomy (UTA) was a definitive procedure in some patients without reflux at presentation, many who underwent heminephrectomy, went on to require later bladder surgery for either recurrent UTI or persistent reflux. The present study has multiple limitations. Although VUR was an indication for revision surgery in the early part of the series, the current treatment of VUR is not necessarily as stringent. In addition, no distinction was made between an orthotopic or ectopic ureterocele, although some authors have reported differing outcomes in these two groups. However, it is felt that given the large data set of a relatively uncommon condition, the lack of superiority of one approach is apparent.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is no definitive surgical repair for the ureterocele complex. All groups except UTA had statistically similar rates of revision surgery. The widespread variability in current management echoes the lack of one superior approach found in this comprehensive series.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, UC San Diego Health System, 200 West Arbor Dr. #8897, San Diego, CA 92103-8897, USA.
authors.forename: S A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Cohen
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, UC San Diego Health System, 200 West Arbor Dr. #8897, San Diego, CA 92103-8897, USA.
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Juwono
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, UC San Diego Health System, 200 West Arbor Dr. #8897, San Diego, CA 92103-8897, USA.
authors.forename: K L
authors.initials: KL
authors.lastname: Palazzi
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, UC San Diego Health System, 200 West Arbor Dr. #8897, San Diego, CA 92103-8897, USA; Pediatric Urology, Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego, 3020 Children's Way, MC 5056, San Diego, CA 92123, USA.
authors.forename: G W
authors.initials: GW
authors.lastname: Kaplan
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, UC San Diego Health System, 200 West Arbor Dr. #8897, San Diego, CA 92103-8897, USA; Pediatric Urology, Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego, 3020 Children's Way, MC 5056, San Diego, CA 92123, USA. Electronic address: gchiang@rchsd.org.
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Chiang
mesh_terms: D000367:Age Factors; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D016015:Logistic Models; D008297:Male; D009392:Nephrectomy; D012086:Reoperation; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D016019:Survival Analysis; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014518:Ureterocele / Q000150:complications / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000601:surgery*; D018666:Ureteroscopy
keywords: Revision; Surgery; Ureterocele; Vesicoureteral reflux