
==== Front
Indian J Radiol Imaging
Indian J Radiol Imaging
10.1055/s-00050590
The Indian Journal of Radiology & Imaging
0971-3026
1998-3808
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

10.1055/s-0044-1787779
IJRI-24-4-3515
Letter to the Editor
Unraveling the Veil: Deflux Injection Masquerading as Calculus at the Vesicoureteric Junction
http://orcid.org/0009-0002-3107-5411
Dasan Josh K. 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3694-9387
Augustine Antony 1
Singh J. Chandra 2
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9093-375X
Chandramohan Anuradha 1
1 Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Department of Urology, Christian Medical College Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
Address for correspondence Anuradha Chandramohan, MD, FRCR Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College VelloreVellore 632004, Tamil NaduIndiaanuradhachandramohan@gmail.com
18 6 2024
10 2024
1 6 2024
34 4 795798
Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ )
2024
Indian Radiological Association.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
==== Body
pmcWe are pleased to present an intriguing case that underscores the potential for misinterpretation of ultrasound findings, particularly in the context of a relatively common clinical scenario.

During a routine ultrasound examination of a 12-year-old boy with a history of left-sided vesicoureteric reflux (VUR), a distinct hyperechoic focus measuring approximately 1.7 cm with posterior shadowing was observed at the left vesicoureteric junction (VUJ) ( Fig. 1A ). Notably, color Doppler imaging revealed a characteristic twinkling artifact ( Fig. 1B ), alongside the presence of ureteric jets from both VUJs into the bladder ( Fig. 1C ).

Fig. 1 Ultrasound image of the bladder shows ( A ) a well-defined hyperechoic focus with posterior shadowing at the left vesicoureteric junction (VUJ) (arrow). On color Doppler, there was ( B ) twinkling artifact (arrowhead). Doppler also showed ureteric jet from both VUJ into the bladder ( C ).

Regrettably, in the enthusiasm of identifying what was presumed to be a 1.7-cm nonobstructive calculus, the crucial step of detailed patient history examination was overlooked. Subsequent inquiry into the patient's medical background revealed a history of successful treatment for left-sided VUR 3 years prior, through the administration of Deflux injection at the VUJ. This revelation challenged the initial diagnosis of VUJ calculus, shedding light on the possibility of Deflux injection mimicking such calcific appearances.

Deflux injection, comprising a biodegradable dextranomer-hyaluronic acid copolymer, is commonly employed in the management of vesicoureteral reflux in pediatric patients ( Fig. 2 ). Its mechanism involves inducing a mass effect at the VUJ, thereby enhancing valve competency and preventing reflux. Deflux injections are administered into specific layers of the ureter and the bladder. Subureteral injections are administered beneath the ureteral orifice, targeting the submucosal layer of the ureter at the VUJ ( Fig. 3A )—also known as STING (subureteric injection). Another technique called the hydrodistension implantation technique (HIT) consists of introducing the needle into the mucosa inside the ureteral tunnel. Finally, the double HIT is currently the most performed technique for endoscopic correction of VUR in the United States. It consists of two intraluminal ureteric tunnel injections with hydrodistension. The first injection of the bulking agent aims to coapt the detrusor tunnel whereas the second injection in a more distal intramural tunnel leads to coaptation of the ureteric orifice. These intravesical injections are administered at the detrusor muscle layer ( Fig. 3B ). Endoscopic injections, performed via a urethral endoscope, can target either the submucosal layer of the ureter or the detrusor muscle layer. 3

Fig. 2 Diagrammatic representation of Deflux injection at vesicoureteric junction (VUJ) through cystoscopy approach.

Fig. 3 ( A ) Diagrammatic representation of STING (subureteric injection) technique with submucosal injection of Deflux into the ureter. ( B ) Diagrammatic representation of double hit technique of Deflux injection into the detrusor muscle in the urinary bladder and the submucosal layer of the ureter.

On ultrasound, these implants may initially appear isoechoic, later transitioning to a hyperechoic state with postacoustic shadowing and twinkle artifacts. On noncontrast computed tomography (CT) scans Deflux appears hypodense. But density can change over time depending on biodegradation, displacement, dissolution, calcification, or disruption. 4

In distinguishing Deflux injection from calculus on ultrasound, certain key considerations merit attention. First, meticulous patient history remains paramount. Additionally, the absence of hydronephrosis despite the presence of a seemingly large calculus, coupled with the persistence of ureteric jets into the bladder, can serve as crucial discriminators. Similarly, on CT absence of back pressure changes in the form of hydronephrosis and density < 400 HU were highly suggestive of calcified Deflux. 4

The overarching lesson derived from this case extends beyond mere differentiation between Deflux injection and calculus. It underscores the fundamental principle of diagnostic medicine: the imperative to recognize the subtleties of individual patient presentations amidst the broader statistical landscape. While the majority of cases may conform to expected patterns, it is the identification and interpretation of atypical findings that truly distinguish clinical acumen.

In conclusion, this case serves as a poignant reminder of the nuanced nature of diagnostic radiology, urging practitioners to exercise diligence, clinical judgment, and an unwavering commitment to patient-centered care.

Conflict of Interest None declared.
==== Refs
References

1 Cerwinka W H Kaye J D Scherz H C Kirsch A J Grattan-Smith J D Radiologic features of implants after endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux in children Am J Roentgenol 2010 195 01 234 240 20566822
2 Steinborn M Kehrer L Kabs C Hosie S Huf V The color Doppler twinkling artifact of implants after endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux in children: a common finding with high potential for misdiagnosis J Pediatr Urol 2021 17 05 7420 7.42E8
3 Escolino M Kalfa N Castagnetti M Endoscopic injection of bulking agents in pediatric vesicoureteral reflux: a narrative review of the literature Pediatr Surg Int 2023 39 01 133 36806763
4 Yankovic F Swartz R Cuckow P Incidence of Deflux® calcification masquerading as distal ureteric calculi on ultrasound J Pediatr Urol 2013 9 (6, part A):820 824 23186595
