Endoscopic correction of VUR has gained its popularity due to its less invasiveness, associated low morbidity and short hospital stay. Although short term follow-up had justified their efficacy; however, long term recurrence and complications following endoscopic correction were also being reported in the literatures (6). Currently, there are insufficient evidences on the efficacy and safety of biocompatible tissue augmenting materials used for endoscopic correction of VUR; particularly on the new tissue bulking agents. (6) Polyacrylate polyalcohol copolymer (PPC)-Vantris ® (Promedon, Cordoba, Argentina) is the newest tissue augmenting biocompatible Acrylics used for endoscopic correction of VUR.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
25
St. Luke's Medical Center
Quezon City, NCR, Philippines
Rate of Treatment success
Rate of complete resolution of VUR on follow-up VCUG at 3 months and 1 year.
Time frame: 3 months, 1 year
Rate of renal scar development
The rate of Renal scarring is defined as consistent decreased tracer activity noted in follow-up DMSA scan.
Time frame: at 3 months, 1 year
Length of VUR treatment related hospital stay
Number of hospital days incurred related to VUR treatment, such as hospital admission on treatment period, recovery period, and subsequent admissions for complicated UTI secondary to VUR.
Time frame: 1 year
Rate of failed treatment response
Rate of VUR with resoultion noted on 3 month follow-up; however, VUR noted on 1 year VCUG follow-up. Failed treatment defined as persistent VUR or VUR grade progressed despite treatment.
Time frame: 3 months, 1 year
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.