Neurodevelopmental Outcome in Infants with Lower Urinary Tract Obstruction Based on Different Degrees of Severity

Sonia Monteiro, Ahmed A. Nassr, Peter S. Yun, Robert Voigt, Chester J. Koh, David R. Roth, Michael Braun, Joseph Angelo, Isabel Moscardo, Jimmy Espinoza, Alireza A. Shamshirsaz, Michael Belfort, Rodrigo Ruano, Magdalena Sanz Cortes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations


To determine postnatal neurodevelopmental (ND) outcomes for children with congenital lower urinary tract obstruction (LUTO) based on disease severity. Methods: Twenty male infants with LUTO were classified prenatally as Stage 1 (normal amniotic fluid and renal function; n = 5), Stage 2 (signs of obstruction with preserved renal function; n = 13), and Stage 3 (signs of severe renal damage; n = 2). ND status was assessed using the Developmental Profile-3 test in 5 developmental domains (physical, adaptive behavior, social-emotional, cognitive, and communication). Each domain was considered to be delayed if standard scores were 2 or more SD below the mean. ND outcomes were compared between cases with an expected normal renal function (LUTO Stage 1) and those with impaired renal function (LUTO Stages 2 and 3). Results from cases with Stage 2 were also compared to those from Stage 3. ORs were calculated to predict risk for adverse ND outcome for each domain considering prenatal and postnatal factors. Results: Gestational age (GA) at the diagnosis of LUTO was similar between both groups (Stage 1: 24.85 ± 7.87 vs. Stages 2 and 3: 21.4 ± 4.31 weeks; p = 0.24). Twelve of 15 cases with Stage 2 or 3 underwent vesicoamniotic shunt placement compared to none of Stage 1 fetuses (p < 0.01). No differences in GA at delivery were detected between the groups (37.9 ± 1.6 vs. 35.1 ± 3.6 weeks; p = 0.1). One of the infants in the Stage 2 and 3 groups received a kidney transplant during follow-up. One case (20%) from Stage 1 group required dialysis during the first 6 months of life, and 1 case from Stage 2 to 3 group required it during the first 6 months (p = 1.0), whereas 3 additional cases needed dialysis from 6 to 24 months (p = 0.6). Mean age at Developmental Profile 3 (DP-3) testing was 20.3 ± 12.3 months (Stage 1: 11.2 ± 8.6 vs. Stages 2 and 3: 23.4 ± 13.4 months; p = 0.07). Fifteen of the 20 patients (75%) had no ND delays. Of the 5 patients with ND delays, 4 received dialysis. No differences in ND outcomes between infants with LUTO Stage 1 and those with Stages 2 and 3 were detected except for a trend toward better physical development in Stage 1 (102.6 ± 11.6 vs. 80.7 ± 34.9; p = 0.05). Infants diagnosed with LUTO Stage 3 showed significantly lower adaptive scores than those diagnosed with Stage 2 (Stage 2: 101.9 ± 22.3 vs. Stage 3: 41.5 ± 30.4; p = 0.04) and a nonsignificant trend for lower results in physical (85.8 ± 33.0 vs. 47.5 ± 38.9; p = 0.1) and socio-emotional (94.7 ±17.9 vs. 73.5 ± 13.4; p = 0.1) domains. Infants who received dialysis showed 15-fold increased risk (95% CI 0.89-251) for delayed socio-emotional development (p = 0.06). Diagnosis of fetal renal failure increased the risk for delays in the adaptive domain 30-fold (95% CI 1.29-93.1; p = 0.03). Infants with abnormal renal function had 19 times (95% CI 1.95-292) increased risk for delays in the physical domain (p = 0.03). Conclusions: While most patients with LUTO do not exhibiting ND delays, our results support the importance of ND monitoring, especially in severe forms of LUTO, as increased severity of this condition may be associated with poorer ND outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)587-596
Number of pages10
JournalFetal Diagnosis and Therapy
Issue number8
StatePublished - Mar 6 2020

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Embryology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology


Dive into the research topics of 'Neurodevelopmental Outcome in Infants with Lower Urinary Tract Obstruction Based on Different Degrees of Severity'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this