[Experience with laparoscopic pyeloplasty for treating ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Technique and results]
- PMID: 18379749
- DOI: 10.1007/s00120-008-1692-7
[Experience with laparoscopic pyeloplasty for treating ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Technique and results]
Abstract
Introduction: Open pyeloplasty has been the gold standard for treating ureteropelvic junction obstruction, with a success rate greater than 90%. However, during the last decade the management has been revolutionized with the introduction of laparoscopy and endourology, yielding comparable results and fewer morbid outcomes.
Materials and methods: Between 1997 and 2007, dismembered and non-dismembered retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty was performed in 31 children with a medium age of 123 months (range 36-192 months). Fourteen children underwent dismembered pyeloplasty (Anderson-Hynes) and 16 children underwent non-dismembered pyeloplasty (YV plasty) and in one child we performed an ureterolysis.
Results: The mean operating time was 120 min (range 67-257 min). In 21 cases, intraoperative findings revealed a significant crossing vessel. Based on a furosemide nephrogram and subjective complaints, the success rate was 93%. The two failures (laparoscopic YV plasty and laparoscopic ureterolysis) occurred in the early phase of laparoscopy and have been treated by open Anderson-Hynes plasty.
Conclusion: With increasing improvement of the suture techniques, laparoscopic pyeloplasty represents, in experienced hands, an alternative method with success rates comparable to the open technique. In our opinion, retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty is technically possible and feasible even in infants.
Similar articles
-
Dismembered and non-dismembered retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children.World J Urol. 2013 Jun;31(3):689-95. doi: 10.1007/s00345-012-0887-0. Epub 2012 May 22. World J Urol. 2013. PMID: 22618575
-
Which is better--retroperitoneoscopic or laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children?J Urol. 2007 Oct;178(4 Pt 2):1791-5; discussion 1795. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.200. Epub 2007 Aug 17. J Urol. 2007. PMID: 17707427
-
Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: long-term experience with an algorithm for laser endopyelotomy and laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty.J Urol. 2007 Mar;177(3):1000-5. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.049. J Urol. 2007. PMID: 17296396
-
Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status.BJU Int. 2005 Mar;95 Suppl 2:102-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05208.x. BJU Int. 2005. PMID: 15720343 Review.
-
Ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children by polar vessels. Is laparoscopic vascular hitching procedure a good solution? Single center experience on 35 consecutive patients.J Pediatr Surg. 2016 Feb;51(2):310-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.10.005. Epub 2015 Oct 22. J Pediatr Surg. 2016. PMID: 26522896 Review.
Cited by
-
Small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique (SMART) pyeloplasty in adult patients: comparison of cosmetic and post-operative pain outcomes in a matched-pair analysis with standard retroperitoneoscopy: preliminary report.World J Urol. 2012 Oct;30(5):605-11. doi: 10.1007/s00345-011-0740-x. Epub 2011 Aug 23. World J Urol. 2012. PMID: 21861125 Clinical Trial.
-
[Pyeloplasty - pro robotic-assisted].Urologe A. 2012 May;51(5):640-4. doi: 10.1007/s00120-012-2882-x. Urologe A. 2012. PMID: 22526184 German.
-
[Kidney duplication with ureteropelvic junction obstruction in childhood: retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty].Urologe A. 2010 Nov;49(11):1393-7. doi: 10.1007/s00120-010-2321-9. Urologe A. 2010. PMID: 20464366 German.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources