Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dismembered and non-dismembered retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Open dismembered pyeloplasty according to Anderson-Hynes (AHP) is the gold standard treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. However, during the last decade, the management has been revolutionized with introduction of laparoscopy and endourology yielding comparable results and less morbid outcomes.

Methods

Between 1997 and 2010, dismembered and non-dismembered retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty was performed in 41 children with a median age of 130 month (range 5–192). 20 children underwent a dismembered pyeloplasty (Anderson-Hynes) and 21 children were operated by a non-dismembered pyeloplasty (Y-V-Plasty).

Results

The mean operation time was 120 min (range 52–257). Intraoperative findings revealed in 29 cases a significant crossing vessel. Based on a furosemide nephrogram and subjective complaints, the success rate was 88 % with a median follow-up of 69 month (range 14–142). The 5 failures (2 Y-V-Plasty, 3 AHP) have been treated by open AHP (n = 2), Laser endopyelotomy (n = 2) and Lap-AHP (n = 1) without further problems.

Conclusion

With increasing improvement of the suture techniques, the laparoscopic pyeloplasty represents in experienced hands an alternative method with comparable success rates to the open technique. In our opinion, retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty is technically possible and feasible even in infants. We found in our series no statistically significant difference between dismembered and non-dismembered pyeloplasty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fernbach SK, Maizels M, Conway JJ (1993) Ultrasound grading of hydronephrosis: introduction in the system used by the Society for Fetal Urology. Ped Rad 23:478

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fung LCT, Steckler RF, Khoury AE, McLoire GA, Chait PG, Churchill BM (1994) Intrarenal resistive index correlates with renal pelvis pressure. J Urol 152:607–611

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Penn HA, Gatti JM, Hoestje SM, DeMarco RT, Snyder CL, Murphy JP (2010) Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children: preliminary report of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 184:690–695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Atug F, Woods M, Burgess SV, Castle EP, Thomas R (2005) Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 174(4 pt 1):1440–1442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bonnard A, Fouquet V, Carricaburu E, Aigrain Y, El-Ghoneimi A (2005) Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 173(5):1710–1713

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Canon SJ, Jayanthi VR, Lowe GJ (2007) Which is better-retroperitoneoscopic or laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children? J Urol 178(4 pt 2):1791–1795

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Casale P, Grady RW, Joyner BD, Zeltser IS, Figueroa TE, Mitchell ME (2004) Comparison of dismembered and nondismembered laparocopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient. J Endourol 18(9):875–878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chacko JK, Piaggio LA, Neheman A, Gonzalez R (2009) Pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty: lessons learned from the first 52 cases. J Endourol 23(8):1307–1311

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chertin B, Rolle U, Farkas A, Puri P (2002) Does delaying pyeloplasty affect renal function in children with a prenatal diagnosis of pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction? BJU Int 90(1):72–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. El-Ghoneimi A, Farhat W, Bolduc S, Bagli D, McLorie G, Aigrain Y, Khoury A (2003) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty by a retroperitoneal approach in children. BJU Int 92(1):104–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. El-Ghoneimi A (2004) Laparoscopic management of hydronephrosis in children. World J Urol 22(6):415–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. El-Ghoneimi A (2003) Paediatric laparoscopic surgery. Curr Opin Urol 13(4):329–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ong AM, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW (2005) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. BJU Int 95(Suppl 2):102–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kavoussi LR, Peters CA (1993) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 150:1891–1894

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Peters CA (2004) Laparoscopy in pediatric urology. Curr Opin Urol 14(2):67–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tan HL (2001) Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children using needlescopic instrumentation. Urol Clin North Am 28(1):43–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM (1993) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 150:1795–1797

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kutikov A, Resnick M, Casale P (2006) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the infant younger than 6 months – Is it technically possible? J Urol 175(4):1477–1479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rassweiler JJ, Subotic S, Feist-Schwenk M, Sugiono M, Schulze M, Teber D, Frede T (2007) Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: long-term experience with an algorithm for laser endopyelotomy and laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty. J Urol 177(3):1000–1005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Johnston JH, Evans JP, Glassberg KI, Shapiro SR (1977) Pelvic hydronephrosis in children: a review of 219 personal cases. J Urol 117(1):97–101

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Frauscher F, Janetschek G, Klauser A, Peschel R, Halpern EJ, Pallwein L, Bartsch G (2002) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for UPJ obstruction with crossing vessels: contrast-enhanced colour Doppler findings and long-term outcome. Urology 59:500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stern JM, Park S, Anderson JK, Landman J, Pearle M, Cadeddu JA (2007) Functional assessment of crossing vessels as etiology of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 69(6):1022–1024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Palmer LS, Maizels M, Cartwright PC, Fernbach S, Conway JJ (1998) Surgery versus observation for managing obstructive grade 3 to 4 unilateral hydronephrosis: a report from the Society for Fetal Urology. J Urol 159:222–228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Shokeir AA, Provoost AP, Nijman RJM (1997) Resistive index in obstructive uropathy. Br J Urol 80:195–200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Metzelder ML, Schier F, Petersen C, Truss M, Ure BM (2006) Laparoscopic transabdominal pyeloplasty in children is feasible irrespective of age. J Urol 175(5):688–691

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Reddy M, Nerli RB, Bashetty R, Ravish IR (2005) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 174(2):700–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tan HL, Roberts JP (1996) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children: preliminary results. Br J Urol 77(6):909–913

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Subotic U, Rohard I, Weber DM, Gobet R, Moehrlen U, Gonzalez R (2011) A minimal invasive surgical approach for children of all ages with ureteropelvic junction obstruction.J Pediatr Urol. [Epub ahead of print]

  29. Tan HL (1999) Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 162(3 Pt 2):1045–1047

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Farhat W, Afshar K, Papanikolaou F, Austin R, Khoury A, Bagli D (2004) Retroperitoneal-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: initial experience. J Endourol 18(9):879–882

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstr. 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland

    Svetozar Subotic, Stephen Wyler, Cyrill A. Rentsch & Alexander Bachmann

  2. Department of Urology, SLK Kliniken Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Hagen Weiss & Jens Rassweiler

  3. Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Dogu Teber

Authors
  1. Svetozar Subotic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hagen Weiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen Wyler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cyrill A. Rentsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jens Rassweiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexander Bachmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dogu Teber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Svetozar Subotic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Subotic, S., Weiss, H., Wyler, S. et al. Dismembered and non-dismembered retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. World J Urol 31, 689–695 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0887-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0887-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation