Pathophysiology and treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction

Current Urology Reports

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 111-117

  Williams, Brent ^b   Tareen, Basir ^b   Resnick, Martin I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF CLEVELAND   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENDOSCOPY; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INVASIVE PROCEDURE; LASER; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PREVENTIVE MEDICINE; PYELOPLASTY; REVIEW; URETEROPELVIC JUNCTION OBSTRUCTION; AGE; ANIMAL; DISEASE MODEL; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; INCIDENCE; INFANT; KIDNEY PELVIS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; MOUSE; NEWBORN; PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROSTOMY; RISK ASSESSMENT; URETER OBSTRUCTION; URETEROSCOPY; UROLOGIC SURGERY;

AGE FACTORS; ANIMALS; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; KIDNEY PELVIS; MALE; MICE; NEPHROSTOMY, PERCUTANEOUS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE; URETERAL OBSTRUCTION; URETEROSCOPY; UROLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

EID: 33847749442     PISSN: 15272737     EISSN: 15346285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11934-007-0059-8     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Grasso M, Gitlin J: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction. eMedicine 2001. http://www.emedicine.com/med/ topic3074.htm.
2. Walsh PC, Vaughan ED, Retik AB, Wein A: Campbell's Urology, edn 8. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2002.
3. Ruano-Gil D, Tejedo-Mateu A: Human embryo (12mm) with mesohydronephrosis and ureterohydronephrosis. Acta Anat 1975, 93:135-140.
4. Pope J IV, Brock J III, Adams M, et al.: How they begin and how they end: classic and new theories for the development and deterioration of congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract, CAKUT. J Am Soc Nephrol 1999, 10:2018-2028.
5. Allen TD: Congenital ureteral strictures. J Urol 1970, 104:196-204.
6. Koff S, Hayden L, Cirulli C, et al.: Pathophysiology of UPJ: experimental and clinical observations. J Urol 1986, 136:336-338.
7. Murnaghan GF: The dynamics of the renal pelvis and ureter with reference to congenital hydronephrosis. Br J Urol 1958, 30:321-329.
8. Foote JW, Blennerhassett JB, Wiglesworth FW, Mackinnon KJ: Observations on the ureteropelvic junction. J Urol 1970, 104:252-257.
9. Hanna MK: Some observations on congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 1978, 12:151-159.
10. Aoki Y, Mori S, Kitajima K, et al.: Id2 haploinsufficiency in mice leads to congenital hydronephrosis resembling that in humans. Genes Cells 2004, 9:1287-1296.
11. Nishimura H, Yerkes E, Hohenfellner K, et al.: Role of angiotensin type 2 receptor gene in congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract, CAKUT, of mice and men. Moll Cell 1999, 3:1-10.
12. Solari V, Piaseczna Piotrowska A, Puri P: Altered expression of interstitial cells of cajal in congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2003, 170:2420-2422.
13. • Kajbafzadeh A, Payabvash S, Salmasi A, et al.: Smooth Muscle cell apoptosis and defective neural development in congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2006, 176:718-723. This article evaluated many findings at the UPJ and describes the possible role those findings play in the pathophysiology of UPJO.
14. Chang C, McDill B, Neilson J, et al.: Calcineurin is required in urinary tract mesenchyme for the pyeloureteral peristaltic machinery. J Clin Invest 2004, 113:1051-1058.
15. Mendez-Torres F, Urena R, Thomas R: Retrograde ureteroscopic endopyelotomy. Urol Clin North Am, 31:99-106.
16. • Albani J, Agnes Y, Streem S: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: determining durability of endourological intervention. J Urol 2004, 171:579-582. This is a retrospective review of patients that underwent endopyelotomy for UPJO. It is insightful because it has a 3-year follow-up and measures success both subjectively and objectively.
17. El-Nahas AR, Shoma AM, Eraky I, et al.: Prospective, randomized comparison of ureteroscopic endopyelotomy using holmium: YAG laser and balloon catheter. J Urol 2006, 175:614-618.
18. Weikert S, Christoph F, Muller M, et al.: Acucise endopyelotomy: a technique with limited efficacy for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. Int J Urol 2005, 12:864-868.
19. Figenshau R, Clayman R, Colberg J, et al.: Pediatric endopyelotomy: the Washington University experience. J Urol 1996, 156:2025-2030.
20. Tan H, Janmakin A, Webb D, et al.: Endopyelotomy for pelvi-ureteric junction in children. Eur Urol 1993, 24:84-88.
21. Faerber G, Ritchey M, Bloom D: Percutaneous endopyelotomy in infants and young children after failed open pyeloplasty. J Urol 1995, 154:1495-1497.
22. Baldwin D, Dunbar J, Wells N, et al.: Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J of Endourol 2003, 17:155-160.
23. Jarrett T, Chan D, Charambura T, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol 2002, 167:1253-1256.
24. • Eden C, Gianduzzo T, Chang C, et al.: Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary and secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2004, 172:2308-2311. This is a retrospective review of laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the adult. The article has a fairly large number of patients and shows that both primary and secondary UPJO can be done laparoscopically. It critically measures success rates both objectively and subjectively.
25. Sundaram C, Grubb R III, Rehman J, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2003, 169:2037-2040.
26. Gupta M, Tuncay O, Smith A: Open surgical exploration after failed endopyelotomy: a 12 year perspective. J Urol 1997, 157:1613-1618.
27. Tan H: Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 1999, 162:1045-1047.
28. Kutikov A, Resnick M, Casale P: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the infant younger than 6 months-is it technically possible. J Urol 2006, 175:1477-1479.
29. Bonnard A, Fouquet V, Carricaburu E, et al.: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 2005, 173:1710-1713.
30. Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G, et al.: Robotic pyeloplasty: technique and results. Urol Clin North Am 2004, 31:737-741.
31. Gettman M, Neururer R, Bartsch G, et al.: Anderson-Hynes dimembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology 2002, 60:509-513.
32. Bentas W, Wolfram M, Brautigam R, et al.: Da Vinci robot assisted Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty: technique and 1 year follow-up. World J Urol 2003, 21:133-138.
33. Lee R, Retik A, Borer J, et al.: Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 2006, 175:683-687.
34. Kutikov A, Nguyen M, Guzzo T, et al.: Robot assisted pyeloplasty in the infant-lessons learned. J Urol 2006, 176:2237-2240.