Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction

Chandru P. Sundaram, Robert L. Grubb, Jamil Rehman, Yan Yan, Cathy Chen, Jaime Landman, Elspeth M. McDougall, Ralph V. Clayman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

103 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty has become a viable option for the treatment of select patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction with success rates similar to those of open surgery. However, little has been written on the application of this technique for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. We report the largest series of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction managed by laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Materials and Methods: Between March 1994 and March 2001, 36 patients underwent laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. The patients had undergone an average of 1.3 ureteropelvic junction procedures (range 1 to 4) prior to presentation, including cutting balloon retrograde endopyelotomy in 28, antegrade endoscopic endopyelotomy in 7, retrograde endoscopic endopyelotomy in 4, retrograde balloon dilation in 4 and open pyeloplasty in 3. A preoperative diagnosis of recurrent obstruction was confirmed by renal scan in 31 cases, retrograde pyelography in 2 and computerized tomography in 3. Of the 31 patients who underwent spiral computerized tomography angiogram 87% had crossing vessels. Laparoscopic repair comprised dismembered pyeloplasty in 31 cases, Fengerplasty in 3 and flap repair in 2. Postoperative renal scan or excretory urography objective followup was available for all patients at a mean of 10 months (range 3 to 40). Postoperative subjective patient well-being was assessed using an analog pain scale at a mean followup of 21.8 months (range 3 to 85). Results: Average operative time was 6.2 hours (range 2.7 to 10). Average hospital stay was 2.9 days (range 1 to 7). One intraoperative complication occurred, that is bleeding necessitating conversion to an open procedure. Postoperative complications occurred in 8 cases, including anastomotic leakage in 4, and urinary tract infection, pneumonia, atelectasis, fever, bilateral upper extremity weakness and stone formation 2 months postoperatively in 1 each. On excretory urography, furosemide renal scan or the Whitaker test 32 of 36 patients (89%) had a widely patent ureteropelvic junction. Two patients (5.5%) had equivocal radiographic studies but were asymptomatic. In 2 patients the ureteropelvic junction was obstructed by renal scan. One patient had an indwelling stent for renal function deterioration and 1 was asymptomatic. Hence, 34 of the 36 patients (94%) had a reasonable objective response. Overall a 50% or greater decrease in pain was seen in 32 of 36 patients (89%). In the 4 patients with a less than 50% decrease in pain objective renal scans showed an open ureteropelvic junction. As such, the overall success rate of a greater than 50% decrease in pain, a patent ureteropelvic junction and stable or improved function of the affected renal unit was 83% (30 of 36 patients). Conclusions: For secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction, laparoscopic pyeloplasty can be performed safely with a success rate comparable to that of standard open pyeloplasty. The patient benefits of laparoscopic ureteropelvic junction repair of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction are similar to the benefits of laparoscopic repair of primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2037-2040
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume169
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2003

Fingerprint

Kidney
Urography
Pain
Conversion to Open Surgery
Anastomotic Leak
Pulmonary Atelectasis
Spiral Computed Tomography
Intraoperative Complications
Furosemide
Pain Measurement
Operative Time
Urinary Tract Infections
Upper Extremity
Stents
Dilatation
Length of Stay
Pneumonia
Angiography
Fever
Tomography

Keywords

  • Kidney
  • Laparoscopy
  • Ureter
  • Ureteral obstruction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Sundaram, C. P., Grubb, R. L., Rehman, J., Yan, Y., Chen, C., Landman, J., ... Clayman, R. V. (2003). Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Journal of Urology, 169(6), 2037-2040. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000067180.78134.da

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. / Sundaram, Chandru P.; Grubb, Robert L.; Rehman, Jamil; Yan, Yan; Chen, Cathy; Landman, Jaime; McDougall, Elspeth M.; Clayman, Ralph V.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 169, No. 6, 01.06.2003, p. 2037-2040.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sundaram, CP, Grubb, RL, Rehman, J, Yan, Y, Chen, C, Landman, J, McDougall, EM & Clayman, RV 2003, 'Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction', Journal of Urology, vol. 169, no. 6, pp. 2037-2040. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000067180.78134.da
Sundaram, Chandru P. ; Grubb, Robert L. ; Rehman, Jamil ; Yan, Yan ; Chen, Cathy ; Landman, Jaime ; McDougall, Elspeth M. ; Clayman, Ralph V. / Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. In: Journal of Urology. 2003 ; Vol. 169, No. 6. pp. 2037-2040.
@article{3614e9eca4f244ecae574f9032e4c050,
title = "Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction",
abstract = "Purpose: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty has become a viable option for the treatment of select patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction with success rates similar to those of open surgery. However, little has been written on the application of this technique for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. We report the largest series of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction managed by laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Materials and Methods: Between March 1994 and March 2001, 36 patients underwent laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. The patients had undergone an average of 1.3 ureteropelvic junction procedures (range 1 to 4) prior to presentation, including cutting balloon retrograde endopyelotomy in 28, antegrade endoscopic endopyelotomy in 7, retrograde endoscopic endopyelotomy in 4, retrograde balloon dilation in 4 and open pyeloplasty in 3. A preoperative diagnosis of recurrent obstruction was confirmed by renal scan in 31 cases, retrograde pyelography in 2 and computerized tomography in 3. Of the 31 patients who underwent spiral computerized tomography angiogram 87{\%} had crossing vessels. Laparoscopic repair comprised dismembered pyeloplasty in 31 cases, Fengerplasty in 3 and flap repair in 2. Postoperative renal scan or excretory urography objective followup was available for all patients at a mean of 10 months (range 3 to 40). Postoperative subjective patient well-being was assessed using an analog pain scale at a mean followup of 21.8 months (range 3 to 85). Results: Average operative time was 6.2 hours (range 2.7 to 10). Average hospital stay was 2.9 days (range 1 to 7). One intraoperative complication occurred, that is bleeding necessitating conversion to an open procedure. Postoperative complications occurred in 8 cases, including anastomotic leakage in 4, and urinary tract infection, pneumonia, atelectasis, fever, bilateral upper extremity weakness and stone formation 2 months postoperatively in 1 each. On excretory urography, furosemide renal scan or the Whitaker test 32 of 36 patients (89{\%}) had a widely patent ureteropelvic junction. Two patients (5.5{\%}) had equivocal radiographic studies but were asymptomatic. In 2 patients the ureteropelvic junction was obstructed by renal scan. One patient had an indwelling stent for renal function deterioration and 1 was asymptomatic. Hence, 34 of the 36 patients (94{\%}) had a reasonable objective response. Overall a 50{\%} or greater decrease in pain was seen in 32 of 36 patients (89{\%}). In the 4 patients with a less than 50{\%} decrease in pain objective renal scans showed an open ureteropelvic junction. As such, the overall success rate of a greater than 50{\%} decrease in pain, a patent ureteropelvic junction and stable or improved function of the affected renal unit was 83{\%} (30 of 36 patients). Conclusions: For secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction, laparoscopic pyeloplasty can be performed safely with a success rate comparable to that of standard open pyeloplasty. The patient benefits of laparoscopic ureteropelvic junction repair of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction are similar to the benefits of laparoscopic repair of primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.",
keywords = "Kidney, Laparoscopy, Ureter, Ureteral obstruction",
author = "Sundaram, {Chandru P.} and Grubb, {Robert L.} and Jamil Rehman and Yan Yan and Cathy Chen and Jaime Landman and McDougall, {Elspeth M.} and Clayman, {Ralph V.}",
year = "2003",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/01.ju.0000067180.78134.da",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "169",
pages = "2037--2040",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction

AU - Sundaram, Chandru P.

AU - Grubb, Robert L.

AU - Rehman, Jamil

AU - Yan, Yan

AU - Chen, Cathy

AU - Landman, Jaime

AU - McDougall, Elspeth M.

AU - Clayman, Ralph V.

PY - 2003/6/1

Y1 - 2003/6/1

N2 - Purpose: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty has become a viable option for the treatment of select patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction with success rates similar to those of open surgery. However, little has been written on the application of this technique for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. We report the largest series of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction managed by laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Materials and Methods: Between March 1994 and March 2001, 36 patients underwent laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. The patients had undergone an average of 1.3 ureteropelvic junction procedures (range 1 to 4) prior to presentation, including cutting balloon retrograde endopyelotomy in 28, antegrade endoscopic endopyelotomy in 7, retrograde endoscopic endopyelotomy in 4, retrograde balloon dilation in 4 and open pyeloplasty in 3. A preoperative diagnosis of recurrent obstruction was confirmed by renal scan in 31 cases, retrograde pyelography in 2 and computerized tomography in 3. Of the 31 patients who underwent spiral computerized tomography angiogram 87% had crossing vessels. Laparoscopic repair comprised dismembered pyeloplasty in 31 cases, Fengerplasty in 3 and flap repair in 2. Postoperative renal scan or excretory urography objective followup was available for all patients at a mean of 10 months (range 3 to 40). Postoperative subjective patient well-being was assessed using an analog pain scale at a mean followup of 21.8 months (range 3 to 85). Results: Average operative time was 6.2 hours (range 2.7 to 10). Average hospital stay was 2.9 days (range 1 to 7). One intraoperative complication occurred, that is bleeding necessitating conversion to an open procedure. Postoperative complications occurred in 8 cases, including anastomotic leakage in 4, and urinary tract infection, pneumonia, atelectasis, fever, bilateral upper extremity weakness and stone formation 2 months postoperatively in 1 each. On excretory urography, furosemide renal scan or the Whitaker test 32 of 36 patients (89%) had a widely patent ureteropelvic junction. Two patients (5.5%) had equivocal radiographic studies but were asymptomatic. In 2 patients the ureteropelvic junction was obstructed by renal scan. One patient had an indwelling stent for renal function deterioration and 1 was asymptomatic. Hence, 34 of the 36 patients (94%) had a reasonable objective response. Overall a 50% or greater decrease in pain was seen in 32 of 36 patients (89%). In the 4 patients with a less than 50% decrease in pain objective renal scans showed an open ureteropelvic junction. As such, the overall success rate of a greater than 50% decrease in pain, a patent ureteropelvic junction and stable or improved function of the affected renal unit was 83% (30 of 36 patients). Conclusions: For secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction, laparoscopic pyeloplasty can be performed safely with a success rate comparable to that of standard open pyeloplasty. The patient benefits of laparoscopic ureteropelvic junction repair of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction are similar to the benefits of laparoscopic repair of primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

AB - Purpose: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty has become a viable option for the treatment of select patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction with success rates similar to those of open surgery. However, little has been written on the application of this technique for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. We report the largest series of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction managed by laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Materials and Methods: Between March 1994 and March 2001, 36 patients underwent laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. The patients had undergone an average of 1.3 ureteropelvic junction procedures (range 1 to 4) prior to presentation, including cutting balloon retrograde endopyelotomy in 28, antegrade endoscopic endopyelotomy in 7, retrograde endoscopic endopyelotomy in 4, retrograde balloon dilation in 4 and open pyeloplasty in 3. A preoperative diagnosis of recurrent obstruction was confirmed by renal scan in 31 cases, retrograde pyelography in 2 and computerized tomography in 3. Of the 31 patients who underwent spiral computerized tomography angiogram 87% had crossing vessels. Laparoscopic repair comprised dismembered pyeloplasty in 31 cases, Fengerplasty in 3 and flap repair in 2. Postoperative renal scan or excretory urography objective followup was available for all patients at a mean of 10 months (range 3 to 40). Postoperative subjective patient well-being was assessed using an analog pain scale at a mean followup of 21.8 months (range 3 to 85). Results: Average operative time was 6.2 hours (range 2.7 to 10). Average hospital stay was 2.9 days (range 1 to 7). One intraoperative complication occurred, that is bleeding necessitating conversion to an open procedure. Postoperative complications occurred in 8 cases, including anastomotic leakage in 4, and urinary tract infection, pneumonia, atelectasis, fever, bilateral upper extremity weakness and stone formation 2 months postoperatively in 1 each. On excretory urography, furosemide renal scan or the Whitaker test 32 of 36 patients (89%) had a widely patent ureteropelvic junction. Two patients (5.5%) had equivocal radiographic studies but were asymptomatic. In 2 patients the ureteropelvic junction was obstructed by renal scan. One patient had an indwelling stent for renal function deterioration and 1 was asymptomatic. Hence, 34 of the 36 patients (94%) had a reasonable objective response. Overall a 50% or greater decrease in pain was seen in 32 of 36 patients (89%). In the 4 patients with a less than 50% decrease in pain objective renal scans showed an open ureteropelvic junction. As such, the overall success rate of a greater than 50% decrease in pain, a patent ureteropelvic junction and stable or improved function of the affected renal unit was 83% (30 of 36 patients). Conclusions: For secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction, laparoscopic pyeloplasty can be performed safely with a success rate comparable to that of standard open pyeloplasty. The patient benefits of laparoscopic ureteropelvic junction repair of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction are similar to the benefits of laparoscopic repair of primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

KW - Kidney

KW - Laparoscopy

KW - Ureter

KW - Ureteral obstruction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0038626418&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0038626418&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.ju.0000067180.78134.da

DO - 10.1097/01.ju.0000067180.78134.da

M3 - Article

C2 - 12771713

AN - SCOPUS:0038626418

VL - 169

SP - 2037

EP - 2040

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 6

ER -