The role of endourology in ureteropelvic junction obstruction

Current Urology Reports

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 149-153

  Van Cangh, Paul J ^a   Nesa, Sylvain ^a   Tombal, Bertrand ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUVAIN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Holmium Laser; Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty; Open Pyeloplasty; Ureteropelvic Junction; Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; PATHOLOGY; PELVIS; REVIEW; URETER OBSTRUCTION; URETEROSCOPY;

HUMANS; PELVIS; URETERAL OBSTRUCTION; URETEROSCOPY;

EID: 0035312465     PISSN: 15272737     EISSN: 15346285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11934-001-0012-1     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Danuser H, Ackermann DK, Bohlen D, Studer UE: Endopy-elotomy for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: risk factors determine the success rate. J Urol 1998, 159:56–61. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64011-4
2. Van Cangh PJ, Nesa S: Endopyelotomy—prognostic factors and patient selection. Urol Clin North Am 1998, 25:281–288. DOI: 10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70015-X
3. Khan AM, Holman E, Pasztor I, Toth C: Endopyelotomy: experience with 320 cases. J Endourol 1997, 11:243–246.
4. Lechevallier E, Eghazarian C, Ortega JC, et al.: Retrograde Acucise, endopyelotomy: long term results. J Endourol 1999, 13:575–578.
5. Kumar R, Kapoor R, Mandhani A, et al.: Optimum duration of splinting after endopyelotomy. J Endourol 1999, 13:89–92.
6. Preminger GM, Clayman RV, Nakada SY, et al.: A multi-center clinical trial investigating the use of fluoroscopically controlled cutting balloon catheter for the management of ureteral and ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 1997, 157:1625–1629. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64813-4
7. Shalav AL, Giusti G, Elbahnasy AM, et al.: Adult endopy-elotomy: impact of etiology and antegrade versus retrograde approach on outcome. J Urol 1998, 160:685–689. Excellent review comparing the respective advantages and drawbacks of different techniques in a significant number of patients. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62755-1
8. Hollowell CMP, Patel RV, Bales GT, Gerber GS: Internet and postal survey of endourologic practice patterns among American urologists. J Urol 2000, 163:1779–1782. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67541-6
9. Nakada SY, Wolf JS, Brink JA, et al.: Retrospective analysis of the effect of crossing vessels on successful retrograde endopyelotomy outcomes using spiral computerized tomography angiography. J Urol 1998, 159:62–65. Excellent independent discussion on the significant role of crossing vessels on the outcome of endopyelotomy. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64012-6
10. Jabbour ME, Goldfisher ER, Klima WJ, et al.: Endopyelotomy after failed pyeloplasty: the long-term results. J Urol 1998, 160:690–692. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62757-5
11. Van Cangh PJ, Nesa S, Galeon M, et al.: Vessels around the ureteropelvic junction: significance and imaging. J Endourol 1996, 10:111–119. Extensive review of the literature on crossing vessels in ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
12. Jabbour ME, Goldfisher ER, Klima WJ, et al.: Endopyelotomy for horseshoe and ectopic kidneys. J Urol 1998, 160:694–697. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62760-5
13. Hoenig DM, Shalav AL, Elbahnasy AM, et al.: Impact of etiology of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction on outcome of endopyelotomy. J Endourol 1998, 12:131–133. DOI: 10.1089/end.1998.12.131
14. Shalav AL, Giusti G, Elbahnasy AM, et al.: Endopyelotomy for high-insertion ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Endourol 1998, 12:127–130.
15. Chow GK, Geisinger MA, Streem SB: Endopyelotomy outcome as a function of high versus dependent ureteral insertion. Urology 1999, 54:999–1002. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00306-4
16. Bagley DH, Liu JB: Endoureteral sonography to define the anatomy of the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urol Clin North Am 1998, 25:271–279. DOI: 10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70014-8
17. Niemczyk P, Krisch EB, Zeiger L, Marmar JL: Use of diuretic renogram in evaluation of patients before and after endo-pyelotomy. Urology 1999, 53:271–275. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00494-4
18. Van Cangh PJ, Wilmart JF, Opsomer RJ, et al.: Long-term results and late recurrence after endoureteropyelotomy: a critical analysis of prognostic factors. J Urol 1994, 151:934–937.
19. Tawfiek ER, Liu JB, Bagley DH: Ureteroscopic treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 1998, 160:1643–1646. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62368-1
20. Farres MT, Pedron P, Gattegno B, et al.: Helical CT and 3D reconstruction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: accuracy in detection of crossing vessels. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1998, 22:300–303. DOI: 10.1097/00004728-199803000-00026
21. Keely FX, Moussa SA, Miller J, Tolley DA: A prospective study of endoluminal ultrasound versus computerized tomography angiography for detecting crossing vessels at the ureteropelvic junction. J Urol 1999, 162:1938–1941. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68073-1
22. Herts BR: Helical CT and CT angiography for the identifica-tion of crossing vessels at the ureteropelvic junction. Urol Clin North Am 1998, 25:259–267. DOI: 10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70013-6
23. Lacey NA, Massouh H: Use of helical CT in assessment of crossing vessels in pelviureteric junction obstruction. Clin Radiol 2000, 55:212–216. DOI: 10.1053/crad.1999.0367
24. Rouviere O, Lyonnet D, Berger P, et al.: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: use of helical CT for preoperative assessment—comparison with intraarterial angiography. Radiology 1999, 213:668–673.
25. Pereira Arias JG, Ibarluzea Gonzalez JG, Capelastegui Alber A, et al.: Usefulness of magnetic resonance angiography in the diagnosis of polar vessels in stenosis of the pyeloureteral junction. Arch Esp Urol 1997, 50:983–994.
26. Frauscher F, Janetschek G, Helweg G, et al.: Crossing vessels at the ureteropelvic junction: detection with contrast-enhanced color Doppler imaging. Radiology 1999, 210:727–731.
27. Aslan P, Preminger GM: Retrograde balloon cautery incision of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urol Clin North Am 1998, 25:295–304. DOI: 10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70017-3
28. Willard TB, Williams C, Krishnan R, Carson CC: Acucise endopyelotomy: a successful therapeutic intervention for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Tech Urol 1998, 4:118–123.
29. Nakada SY: Acucise endopyelotomy. Urology 2000, 55:277–282. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00393-3
30. Gill HS, Liao JC: Pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction treated with Acucise, retrograde endopyelotomy. Br J Urol 1998, 82:8–11.
31. Angelsen A, Talseth T, Mjones JG, Hedlund H: Hypertension and pseudoaneurysm on the renal artery following retrograde endopyelotomy (Acucise). Scand J Urol Nephrol 2000, 34:79–80. DOI: 10.1080/003655900750016977
32. Schwartz BF, Stoller ML: Complications of retrograde balloon cautery endopyelotomy. J Urol 1999, 162:1594–1598. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68174-8
33. Kim FK, Herrell D, Jahoda AE, Albala DM: Complications of Acucise endopyelotomy. J Endourol 1998, 12:433–436.
34. Gerber GS, Kim JC: Ureteroscopic endopyelotomy in the treatment of patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 2000, 55:198–202. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00530-0
35. Conlin MJ, Bagley DH: Ureteroscopic endopyelotomy at a single setting. J Urol 1998, 159:727–731. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63712-1
36. Renner C, Frede T, Seeman O, Rassweiler J: Laser endopy-elotomy: minimally invasive therapy of ureteropelvic junction stenosis. J Endourol 1998, 12:537–544.
37. Rajan R, Silver RI, Figueroa E, Bagley DH: Ureteroscopic endopyelotomy for recurrent UPJ obstruction in children. Pediatrics 1999, 104:838–839.
38. Monga M: Mini-percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy. Tech Urol 1999, 5:223–225.
39. Oakley N, Haq AU, Hastie K: Endobrst: simple and safe is best. J Endourol 1998, 12:423–428.
40. Osther PJ, Geertsen U, Nielsen HV: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction and ureteral strictures treated by simple high-pressure balloon dilation. J Endourol 1998, 12:429–431.
41. Ahmed S, Crankson S, Sripathi V: Pelviureteric obstruction in children: conventional pyeloplasty is superior to endour-ology. Aust N Z J Surg 1998, 68:641–642.
42. Kumar R, Smith G: Dorsal lumbotomy incision for pediatric pyeloplasty—a good alternative. Pediatr Surg Int 1999, 15:562–564. DOI: 10.1007/s003830050671
43. Ward AM, Kay R, Ross JH: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children—unique consideration for open operative intervention. Urol Clin North Am 1998, 25:211–217. DOI: 10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70009-4
44. Figenshau RS, Clayman RV: Endourologic options for management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in the pediatric patient. Urol Clin North Am 1998, 25:199–209. DOI: 10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70008-2
45. Schenkman EM, Tarry WF: Comparison of percutaneous endopyelotomy with open pyeloplasty for pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 1998, 159:1013–1015. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63824-2
46. Chen RN, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty—indications, technique, and long-term outcome. Urol Clin North Am 1998, 25:323–330. DOI: 10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70021-5
47. Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, et al.: Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol 1999, 162:692–695. DOI: 10.1097/00005392-199909010-00016
48. Van Cangh P: Endopyelotomy: a panacea for ureteropelvic junction obstruction? J Urol 1998, 159:66. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64013-8