Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary and secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

PURPOSE Greater experience with urological laparoscopy has lead to increasing interest in its use for reconstructive surgery, such as pyeloplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 124 cases of laparoscopic pyeloplasty were performed, of which 11 followed failed primary treatment done elsewhere, namely balloon dilation (3), endopyelotomy (3); open pyeloplasty (3), endopyelotomy plus balloon dilation (1) and open pyeloplasty plus balloon dilation (1). Nine patients had renal calculi. A 4 port, balloon dissecting, extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach was used in all except 1 patient, who had a horseshoe kidney, necessitating a transperitoneal approach. RESULTS Operative time was 29 minutes longer in the secondary pyeloplasty group compared to primary cases (173.3 vs 144.0 minutes) but the conversion rate (0% vs 1.6%) and duration of postoperative hospitalization (2.8 nights each) were no greater. The complication rate was 3.6% and 9.1%, respectively. The success rate was 98.2% and 90.9% (p = 0.63) at a mean followup of 20.2 and 19.7 months, respectively. In the 9 patients with renal calculi a total of 18 calculi (94.7%) were successfully removed and the ureter was transposed medial to a crossing vessel in 50.0%. Trainee operating did not significantly prolong the procedure vs no training (162.0 vs 143.9 minutes, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS Extraperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty is capable of addressing all causes of ureteropelvic junction obstruction with excellent functional results and low morbidity, and with an operative time similar to that of open pyeloplasty. Secondary laparoscopic pyeloplasty does not increase hospitalization, conversion or complication rates.

[1]  H. Klingler,et al.  Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. , 2003, European urology.

[2]  R. Clayman,et al.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[3]  R. Clayman,et al.  Use of titanium staples during upper tract laparoscopic reconstructive surgery: initial experience. , 2002, Journal of Urology.

[4]  S. Loening,et al.  Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty--the method of choice in the presence of an enlarged renal pelvis and crossing vessels. , 2002, European urology.

[5]  M. Conlin Results of selective management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. , 2002, Journal of endourology.

[6]  Louis R Kavoussi,et al.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[7]  C. Eden,et al.  Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: 50 consecutive cases , 2001, BJU international.

[8]  J. Patard,et al.  Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a multicenter study of 55 procedures. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[9]  P. Alken,et al.  Nephrectomy: A Comparative Study between the Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic versus the Open Approach , 1998, European Urology.

[10]  F. Sampaio Vascular anatomy at the ureteropelvic junction. , 1998, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[11]  R. Clayman,et al.  Laparoscopic nephrectomy for benign disease: comparison of the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. , 1996, Journal of endourology.

[12]  B. Guillonneau,et al.  Laparoscopic versus lumboscopic nephrectomy. , 1996, European urology.

[13]  P. V. Van Cangh,et al.  Long-term results and late recurrence after endoureteropyelotomy: a critical analysis of prognostic factors. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[14]  G. Preminger,et al.  Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. , 1993, The Journal of urology.