| Literature DB >> 32670630 |
Zakiyah Gaibie1,2,3, Nasreen Mahomed4, Karen L Petersen5,6, Glenda Moonsamy5,7, Akram A H Bokhari1,2,3,8,9, Ahmed Adam1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of the voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) in the follow-up of children with posterior urethral valves (PUVs) post-ablation has been considered a standard practice. The urethral ratio and gradient of change have proven to be useful.Entities:
Keywords: Golden ratio; Posterior anterior urethral ratio; Posterior urethral valves; Urethral ratio; Voiding cystourethrogram
Year: 2020 PMID: 32670630 PMCID: PMC7343929 DOI: 10.4102/sajr.v24i1.1820
Source DB: PubMed Journal: SA J Radiol ISSN: 1027-202X
FIGURE 1On voiding cystourethrogram (VCU) the posterior urethra:anterior urethra ratio (PAR) was computed by dividing the maximum posterior urethral diameter by the anterior urethral diameter (in mm). Distances were measured by an on-screen distance measurement tool in the radiology department, to avoid error. (a) Normal voiding cystourethrogram – control: PAR = 6.02/4.85 = 1.24; (b) posterior urethral valve (PUV) at the time of diagnosis: PAR = 12.7/3.3 = 3.84; (c) successful PUV ablation: PAR = 5.32/4.62 = 1.15; (d) persistent obstruction because of a stricture or residual valve: PAR = 7.11/1.94 = 3.66.
FIGURE 2Flow diagram demonstrating how the systematic review of the posterior:anterior urethral ratio on voiding cystourethrogram from the PubMed, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases was performed.
Tabulation of studies assessed within this review.
| Author | Region (year) | Study period | Number of patients | Age (median) | Single surgeon [±] | Control group | PAR ratio control group (SD) | Pre-ablation ratio (SD) | Post- ablation group (SD) | Number requiring second ablation | Ratio prior to second ablation Mean | Method of ablation performed (cold knife/ablation/laser/not mentioned) | Follow-up VCUG | Study cut-off ratio | Author’s conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Westmead, Australia (2006) | 1995–2004 | 35 (PUV patients) | 23 <1 year | Single | 31 (VCUG for UTI) | Median 2.6 | 5 | 8 | 11 Fr resectoscope with Collins knife/cutting Diathermy or 9 Fr cystoscope with 2.4 Fr electrode | 6–8 weeks | 3.5 | Ratio is an objective tool in assessing success of valve ablation | |||
| Mumbai, India (2009) | 2005–2007 | 30 | Median 13 months | Not mentioned | 30 | Mean 1.73 (0.577) | Mean 4.94 (2.97) | Mean 2.134 (1.19) | 2 | 5.5 (5 and 6) | 10 Fr resectoscope or 7.5 Fr cystoscope with Bugbee electrode | 3 months | 2.5–3 ( | PUR is an objective and reproducible method of assessing PUV patients post ablation | |
| Chandigarh, India (2010) | 2004–2010 | 217 | Mean | Single | 50 | Mean | Mean | Mean | A 0 | C 4.51 | 9 Fr resectoscope, hook electrode and cutting diathermy | 3 months | 3 | Good clinical outcomes in patients who showed normalisation of PU. Strong correlation of persistent symptoms with PUR that remains high | |
| Chennai, India (2016) | 2013–2016 | 56 | 3–250 days/median 15 days | Single | 56, age-matched | Mean 1.5 (0.42) | Mean 3.42 (0.75) | Mean 1.8 (0.21) | 5 | 3.16 (0.54) | 8.5/9 Fr cystoscopy and cold knife | Routine 3 months | 2.2 ( | Ratios >2.2 require cystoscope (residual valve vs. stricture) |
SD, standard deviation; VCUG, voiding cystourethrogram; UTI, urinary tract infection; PUV, posterior urethral valve; PUR, posterior anterior urethral ratio; PU, posterior urethra.