The Indian Journal of Pediatrics

, Volume 86, Issue 4, pp 354–359 | Cite as

Clinical Profile and Outcome of Children with Congenital Obstructive Uropathy

  • Susmitha Tangirala
  • Nalini Bhaskaranand
  • Pushpa G. Kini
  • Kalyan Chakravarthy KondaEmail author
  • Sahithi Teja Gajjala
Original Article



To study the etiology and clinical profile of congenital obstructive uropathy in children, renal status and growth at diagnosis and at follow-up and to determine the predictors for development of chronic kidney disease (CKD).


An observational (retrospective-prospective) study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in South India from September 2014 through September 2016. Sixty children diagnosed to have congenital obstructive uropathy with a minimum follow-up period of 5 y were included and followed up prospectively for 2 more years during the study period. The data of the children at admission and follow-up was obtained from the medical records and analyzed.


Congenital uretero-pelvic junction obstruction followed by Posterior urethral valve were the most common etiologies identified. Male preponderance (88.3%) was observed with poor urinary stream being the most common presentation (36.6%). Forty percent of the population had elevated creatinine. Fifteen percent were hypertensive and 25% had growth failure at diagnosis. However, there was a reduction in the number of children with poor estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), hypertension and growth faltering during follow-up. Among the risk factors, hypertension at diagnosis [O.R-12.8 (2.21–74.22) and p value <0.05] and frequent urinary tract infection (UTI) [O.R-14.06 (2.32–85.42) and p value <0.05] were the most important factors for CKD progression. Children with low eGFR (< 60 ml/min/1.73m2) had more height faltering and hypertension at follow-up (p value <0.05).


Hypertension and frequent UTI were observed to be strongly associated with progression of CKD. Estimated GFR was found to be significantly associated with faltering of height and hypertension. Preserving the renal function prevents growth faltering and development of hypertension at follow-up thereby ensuring a better quality of life.


Congenital obstructive uropathy Chronic kidney disease  Hypertension 


Authors’ Contributions

ST,KCK,STG: Substantial contribution to conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the data and drafting the manuscript.

NB,PGK,KCK: Contributed for the design of the work, critical revision of the article and final approval of the version to be published. NB will act as guarantor for this article.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest


Source of Funding



  1. 1.
    Gulati S, Mittal S, Sharma RK, Gupta A. Etiology and outcome of chronic renal failure in Indian children. Pediatr Nephrol. 1999;13:594–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Warady BA, Chadha V. Chronic kidney disease in children: the global perspective. Pediatr Nephrol. 2007;22:1999–2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kanitkar M. Chronic kidney disease in children: an Indian perspective. Med J Armed Forces India. 2009;65:45–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hari P, Singla IK, Mantan M, Kanitkar M, Batra B, Bagga A. Chronic renal failure in children. Indian Pediatr. 2003;40:1035–42.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hogg RJ, Furth S, Lemley KV, et al. National Kidney Foundation’s kidney disease outcomes quality initiative clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease in children and adolescents: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Pediatrics. 2003;111:1416–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tapia J, Gonzalez R. Pyeloplasty improves renal function and somatic growth in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol. 1995;154:218–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mayor G, Genton N, Torrado A, Guignard J-P. Renal function in obstructive nephropathy: long-term effect of reconstructive surgery. Pediatrics. 1975;56:740.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schwartz GJ, Feld LG, Langford DJ. A simple estimate of glomerular filtration ratein full-term infants during the first year of life. J Pediatr. 1984;104:849–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mirshemirani A, Khaleghnejad A, Rouzrokh M, Sadeghi A, Mohajerzadeh L, Sharifian M. Posterior urethral valves; a single center experience. Iran J Pediatr. 2013;23:531–5.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bomalaski MD, Anema JG, Coplen DE, Koo HP, Rozanski T, Bloom DA. Delayed presentation of posterior urethral valves: a not so benign condition. J Urol. 1999;162:2130–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Uthup S, Binitha R, Geetha S, Hema R, Kailas L. A follow-up study of children with posterior urethral valve. Indian J Nephrol. 2010;20:72–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Drozdz D, Drozdz M, Gretz N, Möhring K, Mehls O, Schärer K. Progression to end-stage renal disease in children with posterior urethral valves. Pediatr Nephrol. 1998;12:630–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Betts PR, Magrath G. Growth pattern and dietary intake of children with chronic renal insufficiency. Br Med J. 1974;2:189–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ylinen E, Ala-Houhala M, Wikström S. Prognostic factors of posterior urethral valves and the role of antenatal detection. Pediatr Nephrol. 2004;19:874–9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parkhouse HF, Barratt TM, Dillon MJ, et al. Long-term outcome of boys with posterior urethral valves. BJU Int. 1988;62:59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. K C Chaudhuri Foundation 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PediatricsKasturba HospitalManipalIndia
  2. 2.Department of Pediatrics, Women and Child BlockKasturba HospitalManipalIndia

Personalised recommendations