Comparison of surgical approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Endopyeloplasty versus endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty

Current Urology Reports

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 140-149

  Stein, Robert J ^b   Gill, Inderbir S ^b   Desai, Mihir M ^a  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HYDRONEPHROSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KIDNEY FUNCTION; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; PYELOPLASTY; PYELOTOMY; REVIEW; STENT; SURGICAL APPROACH; URETEROPELVIC JUNCTION OBSTRUCTION; ALGORITHM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HYSTEROSCOPY; KIDNEY PELVIS; LAPAROSCOPY; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT SELECTION; PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROSTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PROGNOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETER OBSTRUCTION;

ALGORITHMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTEROSCOPY; KIDNEY PELVIS; LAPAROSCOPY; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; NEPHROSTOMY, PERCUTANEOUS; PAIN, POSTOPERATIVE; PATIENT SELECTION; PROGNOSIS; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETERAL OBSTRUCTION;

EID: 33847761934     PISSN: 15272737     EISSN: 15346285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11934-007-0064-y     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. Karlin GS, Badlani GH, Smith AD: Endopyelotomy versus open pyeloplasty: comparison in 88 patients. J Urol 1988, 140:476-478.
2. 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.
3. Motola JA, Badlani GH, Smith AD: Results of 212 consecutive endopyelotomies: an 8-year followup. J Urol 1993, 149:453-456.
4. Pardalidis NP, Papatsoris AG, Kosmaoglou EV: Endoscopic and laparoscopic treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2002, 168:1937-1940.
5. Parkin J, Evans S, Kumar PVS, et al.: Endoluminal ultrasonography before retrograde endopyelotomy: can the results match laparoscopic pyeloplasty? BJU Int 2003, 91:389-391.
6. Knudsen BE, Cook AJ, Watterson JD, et al.: Percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy: long-term results from one institution. Urology 2004, 63:230-234.
7. Sim HG, Tan YH, Wong MYC: Contemporary results of endopyelotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2005, 34:179-183.
8. Biyani CS, Minhas S, el Cast J, et al.: The role of Acucise endopyelotomy in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2002, 41:305-310.
9. Lam JS, Cooper KL, Greene TD, Gupta M: Impact of hydronephrosis and renal function on treatment outcome: antegrade versus retrograde endopyelotomy. Urology 2003, 61:1107-1112.
10. Sofras F, Livadas K, Alivizatos G, et al.: Retrograde acucise endopyelotomy: is it worth its cost? J Endourol 2004, 18:466-468.
11. Kapoor R, Zaman W, Kumar A, Srivastava A: Endopyelotomy in poorly functioning kidney: is it worthwhile? J Endourol 2001, 15:725-728.
12. Gupta M, Tuncay OL, Smith AD: Open surgical exploration after failed endopyelotomy: A 12-year perspective. J Urol 1997, 157:1613-1619.
13. 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.
14. Danuser H, Hochreiter WW, Ackermann DK, Studer UE: Influence of stent size on the success of antegrade endopyelotomy for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: results of 2 consecutive series. J Urol 2001, 166:902-909.
15. Mandhani A, Kapoor R, Zaman W, et al.: Is a 2-week duration sufficient for stenting in endopyelotomy? J Urol 2003, 169:886-889.
16. • Dimarco DS, Gettman MT, McGee SM, et al.: Long-term success of antegrade endopyelotomy compared with pyeloplasty at a single institution. J Endourol 2006, 20:707-712. Comparison of long-term success of antegrade endopyelotomy and pyeloplasty. Antegrade endopyelotomy recurrence-free rate at 3-, 5-, and 10-year time points was 63%, 55%, and 41%, respectively.
17. Albani JM, Yost AJ, Streem SB: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: determining durability of endourological intervention. J Urol 2004, 171:579-582.
18. Ng CS, Yost AJ, Streem SB: Management of failed primary intervention for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: 12-year, single-center experience. Urology 2003, 61:291-296.
19. Sundaram CP, Grubb RL 3rd, Rehman J, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2003, 169:2037-2040.
20. Minervini A, Davenport K, Keeley FX, Timoney AG: Antegrade versus retrograde endopyelotomy for pelvi-ureteric junction (PUJ) obstruction. Eur Urol 2006, 49:536-543.
21. Mufarrij P, Sandhu JS, Coll DM, Vaughan ED: Page kidney as a complication of percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy. Urology 2005, 65:592-594.
22. Chiong E, Consigliere D: Antegrade ureteral intussusception: a rare complication of percutaneous endopyelotomy. Urology 2004, 64:1231.
23. Preminger GM, Clayman RV, Nakada SY, et al.: A multicenter 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.
24. Walz J, Lecamus C, Lechevallier E, et al.: Complications of "Acucise" balloon endopyelotomy. Prog Urol 2003, 13:39-45.
25. Fallon E, Ercole B, Lee C, et al.: Contemporary management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: practice patterns in Minnesota. J Endourol 2005, 19:41-44.
26. Schwartz BF, Stoller ML: Complications of retrograde balloon cautery endopyelotomy. J Urol 1999, 162:1594-1598.
27. • 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. Prospective, randomized trial comparing retrograde endopyelotomy techniques. Success rate was 85% with laser endopyelotomy versus 65% with Acucise, suggesting a trend toward improved outcomes with laser endopyelotomy.
28. Matin SF, Yost A, Streem SB: Ureteroscopic laser endopyelotomy: a single center experience. J Endourol 2003, 17:401-404.
29. Giddens JL, Grasso M: Retrograde endoscopic endopyelotomy using the holmium:YAG laser. J Urol 2000, 164:1509-1512.
30. Gettman MT, Lotan Y, Roerhborn CG, et al.: Cost-effective treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a decision tree analysis. J Urol 2003, 169:228-232.
31. Desai MM, Gill IS, Carvalhal EF, et al.: Percutaneous endopyeloplasty: a novel technique. J Endourol 2002, 16:431-443.
32. Gill IS, Desai MM, Kaouk JH, et al.: Percutaneous endopyeloplasty: description of a new technique. J Urol 2002, 168:2097-2102.
33. Desai MM, Desai MR, Gill IS: Endopyeloplasty versus endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 2004, 64:16-21.
34. • Desai MM, Spaliviero M, Desai MR, Gill IS: Percutaneous endopyeloplasty: Current clinical status. Contemp Urol 2007, In press. Results of first 55 patients undergoing endopyeloplasty. Procedure completed in 53 patients. Success rate was 96.2%.
35. Ost MC, Kaye JD, Guttman MJ, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus antegrade endopyelotomy: comparison in 100 patients and a new algorithm for the minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 2005, 66(Suppl 5):47-51.
36. Sharp DS, Desai MM, Molina WR, et al.: Dismembered percutaneous endopyeloplasty: a new procedure. J Endourol 2005, 19:210-217.
37. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM: Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993, 150:1795-1799.
38. Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ong AM, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. BJU Int 2005, 95(Suppl 2):102-105.
39. Mandhani A, Kumar D, Kumar A, et al.: Safety profile and complications of transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a critical analysis. J Endourol 2005, 19:797-802.
40. Yurkanin JP, Fuchs GJ: Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloureteroplasty: a single institution's 3-year experience. J Endourol 2004, 18:765-769.
41. Lopez-Pujals A, Leveillee RJ, Wong C: Applicaion of strict radiologic criteria to define success in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2004, 18:756-760.
42. Siqueira TM, Nadu A, Kuo RL, et al.: Laparoscopic treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 2002, 60:973-978.
43. Soulie M, Salomon L, Patard JJ, et al.: Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a multicenter study of 55 procedures. J Urol 2001, 166:48-50.
44. Wyler SF, Bachmann A, Casella R, et al.: Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Endourol 2004, 18:948-951.
45. Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, et al.: Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcomes. J Urol 1999, 162:692-695.
46. Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, et al.: Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2003, 44:340-345.
47. Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N, McDougall EM: Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2003, 17:155-160.
48. Palese MA, Stifelman MD, Munver R, et al.: Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: a combined experience. J Endourol 2005, 19:382-386.
49. Mendez-Torres F, Woods M, Thomas R: Technical modifications for robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2005, 19:393-396.
50. 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.
51. Siddiq FM, Leveillee RJ, Villicana P, Bird VG: Computer-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: University of Miami experience with the daVinci Surgical System. J Endourol 2005, 19:387-392.
52. Patel V: Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 2005, 66:45-49.
53. Gettman MT, Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G: A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur Urol 2002, 42:453-457.
54. Bhayani SB, Link RE, Varkarakis JM, Kavoussi LR: Complete da Vinci™ versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. J Endourol 2005, 19:327-332.
55. Aron M, Desai MM, Haber G-P, et al.: Routine transposition of anterior crossing vessels during laparoscopic pyeloplasty: is it necessary. Urology 2007, In press.
56. Miller SD: Transpostion during dismembered pyeloplasty in the presence of a crossing vessel is unnecessary: an observation during retroperitoneal laparoscopic repair [abstract]. J Urol 2005.
57. Davenport K, Minervini A, Timoney AG, Keeley FX: Our experience with retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2005, 48:973-977.
58. Frauscher F, Janetschek G, Klauser A, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for UPJ obstruction with crossing vessels: contrast-enhanced color Doppler findings and long-term outcome. Urology 2002, 59:500-505.
59. Ramakumar S, Lancini V, Chan Dy, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with concomitant pyelolithotomy. J urol 2002, 167:1378-1380.
60. Atug F, Castle EP, Burgess SV, Thomas R: Concomitant management of renal calculi and pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction with robotic laparoscopic surgery. BJU Int 2005, 96:1365-1368.
61. Bove P, Ong AM, Rha KH, et al.: Laparoscopic management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in patients with upper urinary tract anomalies. J Urol 2004, 171:77-79.
62. Varkarakis IM, Bhayani SB, Allaf ME, et al.: Management of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction after failed primary laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 2004, 172:180-182.
63. Rabah D, Soderdahl DW, McAdams PD, et al.: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: does CT angiography allow better selection of therapeutic modalities and better patient outcome? J Endourol 2004, 18:427-430.
64. El-Nahas AR, Abou-El-Ghar M, Shoma AM, et al.: Role of multiphasic helical computed tomography in planning surgical treatment for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. BJU Int 2004, 94:582-587.
65. Desai MM, Hegarty N: Contemporary surgical management of adult ureteropelvic junction obstruction. AUA Update Series. Houston, TX; 2007, In press.