Ryan S Hsi1, Sarah K Holt2, John L Gore2, Thomas S Lendvay2, Jonathan D Harper2. 1. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine and Division of Pediatric Urology (TSL), Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: rshsi@uw.edu. 2. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine and Division of Pediatric Urology (TSL), Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiographic followup after pyeloplasty for the correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction is not well defined in children. We characterize trends in frequency and modality of postoperative imaging after open and minimally invasive pediatric pyeloplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the MarketScan® database, we identified patients 0 to 18 years old undergoing pyeloplasty between 2007 and 2013. Followup imaging was classified as functional (diuretic renography, excretory urography) or nonfunctional (ultrasound, computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging). We excluded patients with less than 24 months of postoperative enrollment in MarketScan. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine associations between demographic variables and imaging use patterns. RESULTS: We identified 926 patients with a mean ± SD followup of 3.6 ± 1.3 years, of whom 30% underwent minimally invasive pyeloplasty. Overall 5.9% of patients had no postoperative imaging available. Within the first 6 months postoperatively 853 patients (91%) underwent at least 1 imaging study and 192 (24%) underwent renography. Within the first 12 months postoperatively 91% of patients underwent at least 1 imaging study, most commonly ultrasound. After 12 months almost a third of the patients were not followed with imaging. Of the 71% undergoing imaging most underwent ultrasound. Younger age and female gender were independently associated with frequent imaging (at least yearly) on multivariate logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: Following pediatric pyeloplasty there is variation in modality and frequency of imaging followup. The majority of patients are followed with renal ultrasound, with less frequent use of functional imaging. Almost a third of patients do not undergo followup imaging after 1 year.
PURPOSE: Radiographic followup after pyeloplasty for the correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction is not well defined in children. We characterize trends in frequency and modality of postoperative imaging after open and minimally invasive pediatric pyeloplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the MarketScan® database, we identified patients 0 to 18 years old undergoing pyeloplasty between 2007 and 2013. Followup imaging was classified as functional (diuretic renography, excretory urography) or nonfunctional (ultrasound, computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging). We excluded patients with less than 24 months of postoperative enrollment in MarketScan. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine associations between demographic variables and imaging use patterns. RESULTS: We identified 926 patients with a mean ± SD followup of 3.6 ± 1.3 years, of whom 30% underwent minimally invasive pyeloplasty. Overall 5.9% of patients had no postoperative imaging available. Within the first 6 months postoperatively 853 patients (91%) underwent at least 1 imaging study and 192 (24%) underwent renography. Within the first 12 months postoperatively 91% of patients underwent at least 1 imaging study, most commonly ultrasound. After 12 months almost a third of the patients were not followed with imaging. Of the 71% undergoing imaging most underwent ultrasound. Younger age and female gender were independently associated with frequent imaging (at least yearly) on multivariate logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: Following pediatric pyeloplasty there is variation in modality and frequency of imaging followup. The majority of patients are followed with renal ultrasound, with less frequent use of functional imaging. Almost a third of patients do not undergo followup imaging after 1 year.
Authors: Philipp O Szavay; Tobias Luithle; Guido Seitz; Steven W Warmann; Peter Haber; Joerg Fuchs Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2009-11-18 Impact factor: 1.830
Authors: Joop van den Hoek; Andra de Jong; Jeroen Scheepe; Fred van der Toorn; Katja Wolffenbuttel Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-05-29 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: J S Valla; J Breaud; S J Griffin; N Sautot-Vial; F Beretta; R Guana; T Gelas; X Carpentier; R Leculee; H Steyaert Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2009-04-14 Impact factor: 1.830
Authors: Geolani W Dy; Ryan S Hsi; Sarah K Holt; Thomas S Lendvay; John L Gore; Jonathan D Harper Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-02-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Utsav K Bansal; Pankaj P Dangle; Heidi Stephany; Asad Durrani; Glenn Cannon; Francis X Schneck; Michael C Ost Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 3.418