Table 1. Summary of the key studies for the outcomes of endoscopic injection therapy.
| Study | Study design | Year | No. of patients | Follow-up (yr) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Febrile UTIs | |||||
| Läckgren et al. [16] | Retrospective | 2001 | 221 | Mean, 5 | Febrile UTIs: 3.5% of patients |
| Chi et al. [53] | Retrospective | 2008 | 167 | Median, 2.6 | Febrile UTIs: 12% of patients |
| Hunziker et al. [70] | Retrospective | 2012 | 1,271 | Mean, 7.6 | Febrile UTIs: 5.7% of patients, more frequently developed in female and bladder bowel dysfunction |
| Elder et al. [54] | Retrospective matched cohort | 2007 | 152 | 1 | Average number UTIs per patient: 0.28 on prophylaxis vs. 0.08 with endoscopic injection (p=0.029) |
| 383% higher average number of UTIs on prophylaxis | |||||
| Brandström et al. [55] | RCT | 2010 | 203 | 2 | Febrile UTIs: 57% on surveillance vs 23% with endoscopic injection vs 19% on prophylaxis (p=0.0002) in girls |
| No differences in boy (p=0.28) | |||||
| Renal damage | |||||
| Chertin et al. [17] | Retrospective | 2009 | 507 | Median, 13 | No newly developed renal scar |
| Deterioration of renal function: 7.5% of renal units | |||||
| UTIs incidence : overall 2.2% | |||||
| Brandström et al. [56] | RCT | 2010 | 203 | 2 | New damage: 18% on surveillance vs. 12% with endoscopic injection vs 6% on prophylaxis (p=0.11) |
UTIs, urinary tract infections; RCT, randomized controlled trial.