OBJECTIVES: Although valve ablation is the treatment of choice for patients with posterior urethral valves, debate continues as to the role of urinary diversion. We sought to retrospectively compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes between valve ablation and urinary diversion for patients with posterior urethral valves. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 50 consecutive patients with posterior urethral valves since January 1995. On the basis of the initial renal function and radiologic findings, patients were divided into three groups: group 1, normal renal function and radiologically normal upper tracts; group 2, normal renal function with hydronephrosis and/or reflux; and group 3, azotemia with hydronephrosis or reflux. RESULTS: All 22 patients in group 1 were treated with valve ablation. After a mean follow-up of 32 months, these children had normal renal function and no evidence of upper tract deterioration. All 13 patients in group 2 were also treated with valve ablation. The radiologic abnormalities (hydronephrosis, reflux) resolved in 50% of cases, with an average follow-up of 28 months. Of the 15 patients in group 3, 7 underwent valve ablation and 8 underwent urinary diversion. Urinary diversion was performed in patients with renal deterioration and severe hydronephrosis and/or high-grade reflux. Renal function returned to normal in all patients who underwent valve ablation except one; renal function returned to normal in only 3 of 8 patients who underwent urinary diversion. Radiologically, the severity of the hydronephrosis and reflux was downgraded in patients who underwent valve ablation but not in the diverted group. CONCLUSIONS: Valve ablation is the mainstay of treatment for patients with posterior urethral valves. Prenatal and postnatal factors, such as renal dysplasia and urinary tract infection, respectively, rather than the posterior valve treatment dictate the long-term renal and radiologic outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: Although valve ablation is the treatment of choice for patients with posterior urethral valves, debate continues as to the role of urinary diversion. We sought to retrospectively compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes between valve ablation and urinary diversion for patients with posterior urethral valves. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 50 consecutive patients with posterior urethral valves since January 1995. On the basis of the initial renal function and radiologic findings, patients were divided into three groups: group 1, normal renal function and radiologically normal upper tracts; group 2, normal renal function with hydronephrosis and/or reflux; and group 3, azotemia with hydronephrosis or reflux. RESULTS: All 22 patients in group 1 were treated with valve ablation. After a mean follow-up of 32 months, these children had normal renal function and no evidence of upper tract deterioration. All 13 patients in group 2 were also treated with valve ablation. The radiologic abnormalities (hydronephrosis, reflux) resolved in 50% of cases, with an average follow-up of 28 months. Of the 15 patients in group 3, 7 underwent valve ablation and 8 underwent urinary diversion. Urinary diversion was performed in patients with renal deterioration and severe hydronephrosis and/or high-grade reflux. Renal function returned to normal in all patients who underwent valve ablation except one; renal function returned to normal in only 3 of 8 patients who underwent urinary diversion. Radiologically, the severity of the hydronephrosis and reflux was downgraded in patients who underwent valve ablation but not in the diverted group. CONCLUSIONS: Valve ablation is the mainstay of treatment for patients with posterior urethral valves. Prenatal and postnatal factors, such as renal dysplasia and urinary tract infection, respectively, rather than the posterior valve treatment dictate the long-term renal and radiologic outcomes.