The laparoscopic management of the ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Our initial experience

Year 2016, , 230 - 5, 15.05.2016

Mustafa Bolat , Abdullah Acikgoz Ekrem Akdeniz

https://doi.org/10.17546/msd.23818

Abstract

Objective:Higher morbidity rates, extensive scar tissue formation and longer hospitalization periods of the standard open surgical methods for ureteropelvic obstruction has led to acceleration of minimal invasive techniques. Success rate and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic pyeloplasty has become comparable with open surgery.

Purpose:The aim was to evaluate the clinical results and complications of transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic obstruction.

Material and Methods:Thirty-three patients with ureteropelvic obstruction were enrolled into this study. Eighteen patients underwent Anderson-Hynes dismembered Pyeloplasty and 15 underwent Y-V plasty. Patients were followed-up at postoperative 3., 6. months and then yearly. Partial or total relief of symptoms  and improvement in diuretic renogram were accepted as success.

Results:Median age was 34.5±15.5(13-74) years, number of males were 13 (39.4%) and females were 20 (60.6%). Median Body Mass Index (BMI) was 25.3±15.4(18.5-33.4). Eight were asymptomatic, and 23 had intermittent pain, preoperatively. Fourteen cases had left ureteropelvic obstruction (42.4%) and 19 had in the right kidney. Intraoperatively 19 cases had aberrant vessel. Mean surgery time was 127.9±38.9 (68-245) minutes, median anastomosis time was 20.8±7.3 (8-39) minutes. Median blood loss was 57.1±28.3 (20-150) mL, median postoperative drainage time was 2.6±1.1 (2-7) days. Only one had prolonged ileus and peritoneal irritation findings. Median narcotic and nonnarcotic requirements were 21.5±4.8 (15-30) and 132.6±37.2 (75-200) mg/day, respectively.  Median follow-up period was 35.1±13.6 (11-59) months. 

Conclusions:Laparoscopic pyeloplasty, is minimally invasive and reliable technique replaces open pyeloplasty in many institutions. Shorter hospitalization, lower postoperative morbidity rates, better cosmetic results and higher success   rates can be easily achieved..

Keywords

Hydronephrosis; Ureteropelvic junction; Pyeloplasty; Laparoscopy

References

• Grignon A, Filiatrault D, Homsy Y, Robitaille P, Filion R, Boutin H et al. Ureteropelvic junction stenosis: antenatal ultrasonographic diagnosis, postnatal investigation, and follow-up. Radiology. 1986 Sep; 160(3):649-51.
• Tripp BM, Homsy YL. Neonatal hydronephrosis-the controversy and the management. Pediatr Nephrol 1995;9:503-9.
• Hanna MK, Jeffs RD, Sturgess JM, Barkin M. Ureteral structure and ultrastructure. Part II. Congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction and primary obstructive megaureter. J Urol. 1976 Dec;116(6):725-30.
• Wickham JE, Kellet MJ. Percutaneous pyelolysis. Eur Urol.1983;9(2):122-4.
• Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993;150: 1795-1799.
• Braga LHP, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur Urol 2009; 56:848–58.
• Zhu H, Shen C, Li X, Xiao X, Chen X, Zhang Q et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach during the learning curve. Urol Int. 2013;90:130-5.
• Huang Y, Wu Y, Shan W, Zeng L, Huang L An updated meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Apr 15;8:4922-31.
• Abuanz S, Gamé X, Roche JB, Guillotreau J, Mouzin M, Sallusto F et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: comparison between retroperitoneoscopic and transperitoneal approach. Urology. 2010 Oct;76:877-81.
• Wu Y, Dong Q, Han P, Liu L, Wang L, Wei Q. Meta-analysis of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approaches of laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2012 Sep;22:658-62.
• Shao P , Qin C, Ju X, Meng X, Li J, Lv Q et al. Comparison of two different suture methods in laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urol Int. 2011;87:304-8.
• Blanc T, Muller C, Abdoul H, Peev S, Paye-Jaouen A, Peycelon M et al.Retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: long-term outcome and critical analysis of 10-year experience in a teaching center. Eur Urol. 2013 Mar;63:565-72.
• Başataç C, Boylu U, Önol FF, and Gümüş E. Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Turk J Urol. 2014 Mar; 40:24–30.
• El-Feel AS, Abdel-Hakim MA, Abouel-Fettouh HI, Abdel-Hakim AM. Antegrade ureteral stenting during laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: intraoperative findings and long-term outcome. J Endourol. 2010 Apr;24 :551-5.
• Zeltser IS, Liu JB, Bagley DH. The incidence of crossing vessels in patients with normal ureteropelvic junction examined with endoluminal ultrasound.. J Urol. 2004;172:2304–7.
• Qiu M, Wu H, Ma L, Huang Y, Li G, Li H. Diagnosis ant treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction caused by crossing vessels. An analysis of 24 cases. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2014 Sep;52:702-5.
• Richstone L, Seideman CA, Reggio E, Bluebond-Langner R, Pinto PA, Trock B, et al. Pathologic findings in patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction and crossing vessels. Urology. 2009 Apr;73(4):716-9.
• Simforoosh N, Tabibi A, Nouralizadeh A, Nouri-MahdaviK, Shayaninasab H. Laparoscopic management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction by division of anterior crossing vein and cephalad relocation of anterior crossing artery. J Endourol. 2005 Sep;19:827-30.
• Seo Y, Jae Whan TH, Lee JW. Long-term Follow-up results of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Korean J Urol. 2014 Oct; 55: 656–659.
• Rassweiler JJ, Subotic S, Feist-Schwenk M, Sugiono M, Schulze M. Minimally .invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction. obstruction: long-term experience with an algorithm for laser endopyelotomy and laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty. J Urol. Vol 2007, 177:1000-1005.
• Maynes LJ, Levin BM, Webster TM, Baldwin D, Herrell SD. Measuring the true success of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2008 Jun;22:1193-8.