الفهرس 
introductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 179 |  |  |
| | | from | 179 | | |
Abstract
The subject of this study has been a matter of discussion and research since many years. Many anatomists, pathologist and urologist have delt with it. A lot of theories were stated about the anatomy and physiology of the ureterovesical junction which is a matter of controversy, the most recent and universally accepted work was done by Hutch (1952,1967); Panagho (1963); El—Badawi (1972); El—Badawi et al. (1973); El—Badawi (1982b) and Gosling (1979), Gosling et al. (1983).
The present work aims at a histopathological demonstration of the uretero vesical junction in cases of reflux in comparison with non refluxing cases.
Moreover, the anti—refluxing surgical procedures aiming at re-implantation “uretero-neo-cystostomy” with a submucous tunnel in a trial to elongate the intravesical portion, is it valid for management of our Bilharzial stricture lower ureter 7, which represent one of the difficult urological problems in Egypt.
The aim of the urologist is to restore the unidirectional patency of the ureter, however in Bilharzial stricture of ureter due to variability in the extent of stricture, marked pathological changes in the ureter and bladder and high incidence of postoperative re-stenosis this procedure is not always feasible, so the urologist
should be familiar with different techniques of ureteroneocystostomy in order to be able to deal with different cases.
The work aims also, to evaluate and compare the results of practicable techniques for ureteronoocystostomy which are suitable for our Bilharzial stricture of lower ureter.
Some of these techniques are non refluxing including subrnucous tunnel ureteroneocystostomy “Politano-Leadbetter” (1958), Deroofing (E1—Makhzangy, 1983). While other refluxing techniques include simple ureteroneocystostomy (Makar, 1948), Roan’s flap (Honey and Gelfand 1960) and Fish mouth technique (Safwat, 1980).