Skip to main content
Log in

Valved shunt as a treatment for obstructive uropathy: does pressure make a difference?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Surgery International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

A valved ventriculo-peritoneal shunt (V-P shunt) as a vesico-amniotic shunt (V-A shunt) preserves the filling/emptying cycle and normal bladder development in fetal lambs with bladder outlet obstruction. The optimal pressure for such shunts is unknown.

Materials and methods

We created obstructive uropathy in 60-day gestation fetal lambs. A V-A shunt was placed 3 weeks later, using a low-pressure (Group L: 15–54 mmH2O) or a high-pressure (Group H: 95–150 mmH2O) V-P shunt. We included non-shunted (obstructive uropathy, Group O) and control lambs (Group C). All were delivered at 130 days. Bladder volumes, bladder thickness, renal and bladder histology were compared.

Results

Seventeen lambs had an obstructive uropathy created. Five Group L (four survived), four Group H (three survived) and five Group O survived. Body weight and crown-to-rump lengths of the three groups were not significantly different. Group H lambs had a dilated urachus, urinary ascites and severe ureteral dilatation similar to Group O lambs. There were four Group C lambs. Bladder volume was 10, 15 and 1,150 ml in Group H, 115 ± 67.9 ml in Group L, 128 ± 99.8 ml in Group O and 24.5 ± 3.84 ml in Group C. Unlike Group O lambs, Group L did not have urinary ascites, urinomas or renal dysplasia.

Conclusion

Low-pressure shunts preserved both bladder volume and renal development. High-pressure shunts did neither.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Liley AW (1963) Intrauterine transfusion of foetus in haemolytic disease. Br Med J 2:1107–1109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Harrison MR, Filly RA, Golbus MS et al (1982) Fetal treatment. N Engl J Med 307:161–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pringle KC (1986) Fetal Surgery: it has a past, has it a future? Fetal Therapy 1:23–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Panel Discussion 31st Annual Meeting of International Fetal medicine & Surgery Society, Queenstown, New Zealand, 30 March to 3 April 2012

  5. Kitagawa H, Pringle KC, Koike J et al (2006) Vesicoamniotic shunt for complete urinary tract obstruction is partially effective. J Pediatr Surg 41:394–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kitagawa H, Pringle KC, Koike J et al (2007) Is a vesicoamniotic shunt intrinsically bad? Shunting a normal fetal bladder. J Pediatr Surg 42:2002–2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sato Y, Kitagawa H, Pringle KC et al (2004) Effects of early vesicostomy in obstructive uropathy on bladder development. J Pediatr Surg 39:1849–1862

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nagae H, Kitagawa H, Pringle KC et al (2006) Pressure-limited vesico-amniotic shunt tube for fetal obstructive uropathy. J Pediatr Surg 41:2086–2089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Aoba T, Kitagawa H, Pringle KC et al (2008) Can a pressure-limited vesico-amniotic shunt tube preserve normal bladder function? J Pediatr Surg 43:2250–2255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pringle KC (1984) Fetal lamb and fetal lung growth following creation and repair of a diaphragmatic hernia. In: Nathanielsz PW (ed) Animal models in fetal medicine, vol IV. Perinatology Press, Ithaca, pp 109–148

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kitagawa H, Pringle KC, Zuccollo J et al (1999) The pathogenesis of dysplastic kidney in a urinary tract obstruction in the female fetal lamb. J Pediatr Surg 34:1678–1683

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kitagawa H, Pringle KC, Zuccollo J et al (2000) Glomerular size in renal dysplasia secondary to obstructive uropathy: a further exploration of the fetal lamb model. J Pediatr Surg 35:1651–1655

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kitagawa H, Pringle KC, Koike J et al (2005) Fetal hydrops in experimental obstructive uropathy resolves after vesicostomy formation: is this cause and effect? Pediatr Surg Int 21:25–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Freedman AL, Johnson MP, Smith CA et al (1999) Long-term outcome in children after antenatal intervention for obstructive uropathies. Lancet 354:374–377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Golbus MS, Harrison MR, Filly RA et al (1982) In utero treatment of urinary tract obstruction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 142:383–388

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Harrison MR, Golbus MS, Filly RA et al (1982) Fetal surgery for congenital hydronephrosis. N Engl J Med 306:591–593

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Farrugia MK, Godley ML, Woolf AS et al (2006) Experimental short-term partial fetal bladder outflow obstruction: II Compliance and contractility associated with urinary flow impairment. J Pediatr Urol 2:254–260

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Japanese Society for Grant-in-aid of Scientific Research (C) and by a grant from “Phil & Teds” through the Wellington Surgical Research Trust. Suture materials were supplied by COVIDIEN Japan. All animals are consistently bred to timing of 24 h by Doug Jensen in Wairarapa, New Zealand. The authors thank Shigeko Ohnuma and the other staff in the Department of Pathology in St. Marianna University school of Medicine for assistance in processing the histology.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiroaki Kitagawa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kitagawa, H., Seki, Y., Nagae, H. et al. Valved shunt as a treatment for obstructive uropathy: does pressure make a difference?. Pediatr Surg Int 29, 381–386 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-012-3249-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-012-3249-5

Keywords

Navigation