Journal of Urology & Nephrology
Research Article
Comparison of Endoscopic Injection of Vantris and Gil-Vernet surgery in the Treatment of Primary Vesicoureteral Reflux (VUR)
Rashed FK, Roshandel MR*, Aghaei Badr T and Motlagh RS
Department of Urology, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Iran
*Address for Correspondence: Roshandel MR, Department of Urology, Imam Reza hospital, Tabriz
University of medical sciences, Golgasht Street, Tabriz, Iran; E-mail: roshandelmr@yahoo.com
Submission: 18 June, 2019
Accepted: 14 August, 2019
Published: 17 August, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 Rashed FK, et al. This is an open access article
distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Purpose: Vesicoureteral Reflux (VUR) is the most common urologic
condition in pediatric population, affecting almost 1% of children. The
present study aims to compare outcomes of an open surgical technique
(Gil-Vernet), an old-fashioned method still performed in some centers,
and the endoscopic correction using Vantris as a preferred less invasive
method in children with VUR.
Materials and methods: In this randomized clinical trial, a total of 61
children with VUR of grades I-IV underwent either open surgical repair
using the Gil-Vernet approach (30 patients, 50 renal refluxing units), or
endoscopic repair using Vantris as the bulking agent (31 patients, 49 renal
refluxing units). The change in VUR grade before and after operation was
compared between the two groups.
Results: The Vantris group comprised 5 males and 26 females with
the mean age of 6.15±2.26 years (range, 1-10) versus the Gil-Vernet that
included 9 males and 21 females with the mean age of 5.23±2.05 years
(range, 1-10) (p=0.20 and 0.21, respectively). The VUR grade decreased
significantly in both groups after operation (p<0.001), but despite a better
improvement in the Vantris patients the inter-group analysis missed a
statistically significant level in a marginal fashion (p=0.07). The rate of
improvement and full improvement was 98% and 81.6% in the Vantris
group vs. 94% and 86% in the Gil-Vernet group, respectively (p=0.62 and
0.56, respectively).
Conclusion: Although postoperative improvement in VUR grade
was better in the Vantris® group than that in the Gil-Vernet group, the
difference was not statistically significant. Both methods of treatment were
safe and with a high rate of success. Nevertheless, lesser manipulations
performed in Vantris® makes it favorable comparing with open Gil-Vernet
method.