Skip to main content
PMC home page
Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England logoLink to Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England
. 2001 Sep;83(5):347–352.

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty, initial experience in the management of UPJO.

V J Gnanapragasam 1, T G Armitage 1
PMCID: PMC2503413  PMID: 11806564

Abstract

AIM: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) has emerged in the last 8 years as an alternative to open surgery. We here present the results of our series of patients and evaluate LP in the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with UPJO confirmed by renogram and/or symptoms were offered surgical correction by LP. The risks, alternatives, and novelty of the technique at our centre were explained to obtain informed consent. Patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively and data including operative time, analgesic requirements, time to self care and full activity were recorded. Fifteen patients with a mean age of 38.4 years were recruited in whom 13 successful Anderson Hayes transperitoneal LPs were performed in 12 patients. RESULTS: Mean operative time was 261 min and blood loss was minimal. Analgesic requirements were also minimal with patients requiring PCA for an average of 1.1 days. Average days to free fluids were 1.5 days and the mean hospital stay was 4.4 days. Average number of days to self care and full activity were 3.2 and 12.2 days, respectively. Patients in employment returned to work after an average of 4.4 weeks, In 9/10 cases with pre-operative loin pain, patients had symptom relief following surgery. Postoperative renogram at 6 months confirmed improved drainage in 12 LP procedures. At a mean follow up of 20 months, 11/12 patients remain symptomatically well. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, LP operative times and outcome closely match those of larger series and the functional results are comparable to open pyeloplasty. We conclude that LP is a suitable first line option for UPJO surgery provided standard laparoscopic equipment and a trained urologist are available.

Full text

PDF

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Arun N., Kekre N. S., Nath V., Gopalakrishnan G. Is open pyeloplasty still justified? Br J Urol. 1997 Sep;80(3):379–381. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1997.00310.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aslan P., Preminger G. M. Retrograde balloon cautery incision of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urol Clin North Am. 1998 May;25(2):295–304. doi: 10.1016/s0094-0143(05)70017-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bauer J. J., Bishoff J. T., Moore R. G., Chen R. N., Iverson A. J., Kavoussi L. R. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol. 1999 Sep;162(3 Pt 1):692–695. doi: 10.1097/00005392-199909010-00016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brooks J. D., Kavoussi L. R., Preminger G. M., Schuessler W. W., Moore R. G. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology. 1995 Dec;46(6):791–795. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80345-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bush W. H., Brannen G. E., Lewis G. P. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: treatment with percutaneous endopyelotomy. Radiology. 1989 May;171(2):535–538. doi: 10.1148/radiology.171.2.2704820. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chancellor M. B., Erhard M. J., Hirsch I. H., Stass W. E., Jr Prospective evaluation of terazosin for the treatment of autonomic dysreflexia. J Urol. 1994 Jan;151(1):111–113. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)34884-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen R. N., Moore R. G., Kavoussi L. R. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Indications, technique, and long-term outcome. Urol Clin North Am. 1998 May;25(2):323–330. doi: 10.1016/s0094-0143(05)70021-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen T. D., Gross M. B., Preminger G. M. Long-term follow-up of Acucise incision of ureteropelvic junction obstruction and ureteral strictures. Urology. 1996 Mar;47(3):317–323. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80445-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Eden C. G., Coptcoat M. J. Assessment of alternative tissue approximation techniques for laparoscopy. Br J Urol. 1996 Aug;78(2):234–242. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1996.07616.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Eden C. G., Sultana S. R., Murray K. H., Carruthers R. K. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered fibrin-glued pyeloplasty: medium-term results. Br J Urol. 1997 Sep;80(3):382–389. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1997.00367.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Eden C. G. Treatment options for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction: implications for practice and training. Br J Urol. 1997 Sep;80(3):365–372. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1997.00363.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Janetschek G., Peschel R., Altarac S., Bartsch G. Laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 1996 Mar;47(3):311–316. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80444-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kadir S., White R. I., Jr, Engel R. Balloon dilatation of a ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Radiology. 1982 Apr;143(1):263–264. doi: 10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063737. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Moore R. G., Averch T. D., Schulam P. G., Adams J. B., 2nd, Chen R. N., Kavoussi L. R. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: experience with the initial 30 cases. J Urol. 1997 Feb;157(2):459–462. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(01)65170-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Nadler R. B., Rao G. S., Pearle M. S., Nakada S. Y., Clayman R. V. Acucise endopyelotomy: assessment of long-term durability. J Urol. 1996 Sep;156(3):1094–1098. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(01)65712-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Nakada S. Y., McDougall E. M., Clayman R. V. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: preliminary experience. Urology. 1995 Aug;46(2):257–260. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)80205-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. O'Reilly P. H. Diuresis renography. Recent advances and recommended protocols. Br J Urol. 1992 Feb;69(2):113–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1992.tb15479.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Recker F., Subotic B., Goepel M., Tscholl R. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: preliminary report. J Urol. 1995 May;153(5):1601–1604. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(01)67472-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Schuessler W. W., Grune M. T., Tecuanhuey L. V., Preminger G. M. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993 Dec;150(6):1795–1799. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35898-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Segura J. W. Antegrade endopyelotomy. Urol Clin North Am. 1998 May;25(2):311–316. doi: 10.1016/s0094-0143(05)70019-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sung G. T., Gill I. S., Hsu T. H. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a pilot study. Urology. 1999 Jun;53(6):1099–1103. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00030-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Tan H. L., Roberts J. P. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children: preliminary results. Br J Urol. 1996 Jun;77(6):909–913. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1996.01926.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Taylor A., Jr, Nally J. V. Clinical applications of renal scintigraphy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Jan;164(1):31–41. doi: 10.2214/ajr.164.1.7998566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Van Cangh P. J., Nesa S. Endopyelotomy. Prognostic factors and patient selection. Urol Clin North Am. 1998 May;25(2):281–288. doi: 10.1016/s0094-0143(05)70015-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England are provided here courtesy of The Royal College of Surgeons of England

RESOURCES