Page 9 - Guide de pratique de l’Association des urologues du Canada et des Urologues pédiatriques du Canada sur le dépistage et la prise en charge de l’hydronéphrose anténatale
P. 9
Guide de pratique : Hydronéphrose anténatale
8. Fernbach SK, Maizels M, Conway JJ. Ultrasound grading of hydronephrosis: Introduction to the system
Résumé des recommandations used by the Society for Fetal Urology. Pediatr Radiol 1993;23:478-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02012459
9. Keays MA, Guerra LA, Mihill J, et al. Reliability assessment of Society for Fetal Urology ultrasound grading
1. Tous les cas significatifs d’hydronéphrose doivent system for hydronephrosis. J Urol 2008;180:1680-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.107
faire l’objet d’un examen postnatal par échographie 10. Hodhod A, Capolicchio JP, Jednak R, et al. Evaluation of urinary tract dilation classification system for grad-
ing postnatal hydronephrosis. J Urol 2016;195:725-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.10.089
vésico-rénale. La plupart des centres définissent une 11. Chalmers DJ, Meyers ML, Brodie KE, et al. Inter-rater reliability of the APD, SFU, and UTD grading
hydronéphrose significative au troisième trimestre systems in fetal sonography and MRI. J Pediatr Urol 2016;12:305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
comme la présence d’un DAP ≥ 7 mm (données pro- jpurol.2016.06.012
bantes de niveau 3, recommandation de grade C). 12. Rickard M, Easterbrook B, Kim S, et al. Six of one, half a dozen of the other: A measure of multidisciplinary
2. Le rôle de la PAC instaurée à la naissance est contro- inter/intra-rater reliability of the society for fetal urology and urinary tract dilation grading systems for
hydronephrosis. J Pediatr Urol 2017;13:80e1-e5.
versé; cette prophylaxie aurait davantage de bien- 13. Nguyen HT, Benson CB, Bromley B, et al. Multidisciplinary consensus on the classification of prenatal
faits dans les cas d’hydronéphrose de grade 3 ou 4 and postnatal urinary tract dilation (UTD classification system). J Pediatr Urol 2014;10:982-98.
et en présence de dilatation urétérale ou d’anoma- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.10.002
lies vésicales. Les filles et les garçons non circoncis 14. Lee RS, Cendron M, Kinnamon DD, et al. Antenatal hydronephrosis as a predictor of postnatal outcome: A
atteints d’hydronéphrose bénéficieraient davantage meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2006;118:586-93. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-0120
de la PAC que les garçons circoncis (données pro- 15. Maizels M, Alpert SA, Houston JT, et al. Fetal bladder sagittal length: A simple monitor to assess
normal and enlarged fetal bladder size, and forecast clinical outcome. J Urol 2004;172:1995-9.
bantes de niveau 3, recommandation de grade C). https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000142136.17222.07
3. Il n’est pas nécessaire de procéder à un CUM dans 16. Barbosa JA, Chow JS, Benson CB, et al. Postnatal longitudinal evaluation of children diagnosed with
le cas d’une hydronéphrose de faible grade isolée prenatal hydronephrosis: Insights in natural history and referral pattern. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:1242-9.
(grade 1 ou 2 selon la SFU) si le parenchyme rénal est https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.3989
normal et la taille des reins symétrique (données pro- 17. Ahmad G, Green P. Outcome of fetal pyelectasis diagnosed antenatally. J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;25:119-
22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610500041446
bantes de niveau 3, recommandation de grade C). 18. Dias CS, Silva JM, Pereira AK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of renal pelvic dilatation for detecting surgically
4. Une hydronéphrose de grade élevé (grade 3 ou 4 managed ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2013;190:661-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
selon la SFU) devrait être examinée par CUM, suivi juro.2013.02.014
d’une scintigraphie rénale diurétique si l’étiologie 19. Leung VY, Chu WC, Metreweli C. Hydronephrosis index: A better physiological reference in antenatal ultra-
de l’hydronéphrose ne repose pas sur un RVU (don- sound for assessment of fetal hydronephrosis. J Pediatr 2009;154:116-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpeds.2008.06.032
nées probantes de niveau 4, recommandation de 20. Carrico CW, Zerin JM. Sonographic measurement of renal length in children: Does the position of the patient
grade D). matter? Pediatr Radiol 1996;26:553-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01372240
5. Une scintigraphie rénale diurétique n’est pas néces- 21. Dejter SW Jr, Gibbons MD. The fate of infant kidneys with fetal hydronephrosis but initially normal
saire dans l’évaluation d’une hydronéphrose de fai- postnatal sonography. J Urol 1989;142:661-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)38846-8
ble grade isolée (grade 1 ou 2 selon la SFU) si le 22. Docimo SG, Silver RI. Renal ultrasonography in newborns with prenatally detected hydronephrosis: Why
wait? J Urol 1997;157:1387-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64996-6
parenchyme rénal est normal et la taille des reins 23. Frimberger D, Mercado-Deane MG, Section On U, et al. Establishing a standard protocol for the voiding
symétrique (données de niveau 4, recommandation cystourethrography. Pediatrics 2016;138. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2590
de grade D). 24. Jequier S, Jequier JC. Reliability of voiding cystourethrography to detect reflux. AJR Am J Roentgenol
1989;153:807-10. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.153.4.807
25. Skoog SJ, Peters CA, Arant BS Jr, et al. Pediatric Vesicoureteral Reflux Guidelines Panel summary report:
Clinical practice guidelines for screening siblings of children with vesicoureteral reflux and neonates/
infants with prenatal hydronephrosis. J Urol 2010;184:1145-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Références juro.2010.05.066
26. Szymanski KM, Al-Said AN, Pippi Salle JL, et al. Do infants with mild prenatal hydronephrosis bene-
1. Nguyen HT, Herndon CD, Cooper C, et al. The Society for Fetal Urology consensus statement on fit from screening for vesicoureteral reflux? J Urol 2012;188:576-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the evaluation and management of antenatal hydronephrosis. J Pediatr Urol 2010;6:212-31. juro.2012.04.017
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2010.02.205 27. Conway JJ, Maizels M. The “well-tempered” diuretic renogram: A standard method to examine the
2. Capolicchio G, Leonard MP, Wong C, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of hydronephrosis: Impact on renal function asymptomatic neonate with hydronephrosis or hydroureteronephrosis. A report from combined meetings
and its recovery after pyeloplasty. J Urol 1999;162:1029-32. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005392- of The Society for Fetal Urology and members of The Pediatric Nuclear Medicine Council‒The Society of
199909000-00017 Nuclear Medicine. J Nucl Med 1992;33:2047-51.
3. Thomas DF. Prenatal diagnosis: Does it alter outcome? Prenat Diagn 2001;21:1004-11. 28. Shulkin BL, Mandell GA, Cooper JA, et al. Procedure guideline for diuretic renography in children 3.0. J
https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.210 Nucl Med Technol 2008;36:162-8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.108.056622
4. Thomas DF. Prenatal diagnosis: What do we know of long-term outcomes? J Pediatr Urol 2010;6:204-11. 29. Gordon I, Piepsz A, Sixt R, Auspices of Paediatric Committee of European Association of Nuclear M.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2010.01.013 Guidelines for standard and diuretic renogram in children. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:1175-88.
5. Psooy K, Pike J. Investigation and management of antenatally detected hydronephrosis. Can Urol Assoc https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1811-3
J 2009;3:69-72. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.1027 30. De Man KE, Troch ME, Dobbeleir AA, et al. Comparison of the EANM and SNM guidelines on diur-
6. Abrams P, Khoury S, Grant A. Evidence-based medicine overview of the main steps for developing and etic renography in children. Nucl Med Commun 2015;36:486-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/
grading guideline recommendations. Prog Urol 2007;17:681-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1166- MNM.0000000000000278
7087(07)92383-0 31. Capolicchio G, Jednak R, Dinh L, et al. Supranormal renographic differential renal function in congen-
7. Peters CA. Urinary tract obstruction in children. J Urol 1995;154:1874-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/ ital hydronephrosis: Fact, not artifact. J Urol 1999;161:1290-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-
S0022-5347(01)66815-0 5347(01)61671-9
CUAJ • Avril 2018 • Volume 12, numéro 4 R21