Abstract
Purpose
In children, ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is mostly caused by intrinsic factors (IUPJO); extrinsic UPJO are rare and often due to crossing vessels (CVs).
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed all data of children with UPJO that underwent surgery in our institution from 2004 to 2011. Analyses included age at surgery, gender, preoperative and postoperative results of ultrasound and renal scans [differential renal function (DRF); signs of obstruction], and pathology reports. Available histological specimens of cases with CV were compared to a random selection of intrinsic cases in a blinded fashion. After additional Masson’s trichrome staining, the specimens were scored for fibrosis, muscular hypertrophy, and chronic inflammation.
Results
Out of 139 patients with UPJO, 39 cases were associated with CV. Median age at surgery was 68 months (range 2–194) in the CV group and 11.5 months (range 0–188) in IUPJO group. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty (LDMP) was carried out in 134 and open DMP in five patients. Preoperative ultrasound identified 28/39 cases with CV. DRF below 40 % was more frequently seen in CV patients (p = 0.020). Histological analyses revealed no differences between the CV and IUPJO specimens in total. CV patients with higher grades of muscular hypertrophy had lower preoperative DRF, compared to those with higher preoperative DRF (p = 0.026). Functional recovery after (L)DMP was excellent in both groups.
Conclusion
We could not find any significant histological differences between CV and IUPJO in children. To obtain excellent functional recovery, surgical procedures with a definite correction of the UPJ should be preferred in paediatric patients with CV.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Notley RG (1968) Electron microscopy of the upper ureter and the pelvi-ureteric junction. Br J Urol 40(1):37–52
Kaneto H, Orikasa S, Chiba T, Takahashi T (1991) Three-D muscular arrangement at the ureteropelvic junction and its changes in congenital hydronephrosis: a stereo-morphometric study. J Urol 146(3):909–914
Kim WJ, Yun SJ, Lee TS, Kim CW, Lee HM, Choi H (2000) Collagen-to-smooth muscle ratio helps prediction of prognosis after pyeloplasty. J Urol 163(4):1271–1275
Hosgor M, Karaca I, Ulukus C, Ozer E, Ozkara E, Sam B, Ucan B, Kurtulus S, Karkiner A, Temir G (2005) Structural changes of smooth muscle in congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Pediatr Surg 40(10):1632–1636. doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2005.06.025
Kiratli PO, Orhan D, Gedik GK, Tekgul S (2008) Relation between radionuclide imaging and pathologic findings of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in neonatal hydronephrosis. Scand J Urol Nephrol 42(3):249–256. doi:10.1080/00365590701874967
Kaya C, Bogaert G, de Ridder D, Schwentner C, Fritsch H, Oswald J, Radmayr C (2010) Extracellular matrix degradation and reduced neural density in children with intrinsic ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 76(1):185–189. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.09.097
Zeltser IS, Liu JB, Bagley DH (2004) The incidence of crossing vessels in patients with normal ureteropelvic junction examined with endoluminal ultrasound. J Urol 172(6 Pt 1):2304–2307
Boylu U, Oommen M, Lee BR, Thomas R (2009) Ureteropelvic junction obstruction secondary to crossing vessels-to transpose or not? The robotic experience. J Urol 181(4):1751–1755. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.11.114
Chang SJ, Hsu CK, Hsieh CH, Yang SS (2015) Comparing the efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted versus open pyeloplasty in children: a systemic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. doi:10.1007/s00345-015-1526-3
Lima M, Ruggeri G, Messina P, Tursini S, Destro F, Mogiatti M (2015) One-trocar-assisted pyeloplasty in children: an 8-year single institution experience. Eur J Pediatric Surg 25(3):e1. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1394280
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. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.049
Pesce C, Campobasso P, Costa L, Battaglino F, Musi L (1999) Ureterovascular hydronephrosis in children: Is pyeloplasty always necessary? Eur Urol 36(1):71–74. doi:10.1159/000019930
Sakoda A, Cherian A, Mushtaq I (2011) Laparoscopic transposition of lower pole crossing vessels (‘vascular hitch’) in pure extrinsic pelvi-ureteric junction (PUJ) obstruction in children. BJU Int 108(8):1364–1368. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10657.x
Nerli RB, Jayanthi VR, Reddy M, Koura A (2009) Pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction with crossing renal vessels: a case report of failed laparoscopic vascular hitch. J Pediatr Urol 5(2):147–150. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2008.09.009
Janetschek G, Peschel R, Altarac S, Bartsch G (1996) Laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 47(3):311–316. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(99)80444-0
Fuchs J, Luithle T, Warmann SW, Haber P, Blumenstock G, Szavay P (2009) Laparoscopic surgery on upper urinary tract in children younger than 1 year: technical aspects and functional outcome. J Urol 182(4):1561–1568. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.06.063
Gupta M, Smith AD (1998) Crossing vessels. Endourologic implications. Urol Clin N Am 25(2):289–293
Dewan PA, Ng KP, Ashwood PJ (1998) The relationship of age to pathology in pelviureteric junction obstruction. J Paediatr Child Health 34(4):384–386
Veyrac C, Baud C, Lopez C, Couture A, Saguintaah M, Averous M (2003) The value of colour Doppler ultrasonography for identification of crossing vessels in children with pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Pediatr Radiol 33(11):745–751. doi:10.1007/s00247-003-1012-8
Wang Y, Puri P, Hassan J, Miyakita H, Reen DJ (1995) Abnormal innervation and altered nerve growth factor messenger ribonucleic acid expression in ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 154(2 Pt 2):679–683
Harish J, Joshi K, Rao KL, Narasimhan KL, Samujh R, Choudhary SK, Mahajan JK (2003) Pelviureteric junction obstruction: how much is the extent of the upper ureter with defective innervation needing resection? J Pediatr Surg 38(8):1194–1198
Foote JW, Blennerhassett JB, Wiglesworth FW, Mackinnon KJ (1970) Observations on the ureteropelvic junction. J Urol 104(2):252–257
Murakumo M, Nonomura K, Yamashita T, Ushiki T, Abe K, Koyanagi T (1997) Structural changes of collagen components and diminution of nerves in congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 157(5):1963–1968
Richstone L, Seideman CA, Reggio E, Bluebond-Langner R, Pinto PA, Trock B, Kavoussi LR (2009) Pathologic findings in patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction and crossing vessels. Urology 73(4):716–719. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.10.069 (discussion 719)
Yiee JH, Johnson-Welch S, Baker LA, Wilcox DT (2010) Histologic differences between extrinsic and intrinsic ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 76(1):181–184. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.02.007
Mei H, Pu J, Yang C, Zhang H, Zheng L, Tong Q (2011) Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 25(5):727–736 (Provisional abstract)
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 (discussion 108)
Godbole P, Mushtaq I, Wilcox DT, Duffy PG (2006) Laparoscopic transposition of lower pole vessels—the ‘vascular hitch’: an alternative to dismembered pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in children. J Pediatr Urol 2(4):285–289. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2005.11.017
Gundeti MS, Reynolds WS, Duffy PG, Mushtaq I (2008) Further experience with the vascular hitch (laparoscopic transposition of lower pole crossing vessels): an alternate treatment for pediatric ureterovascular ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 180(4 Suppl):1832–1836. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.055 (discussion 1836)
Nouralizadeh A, Simforoosh N, Basiri A, Tabibi A, Soltani MH, Kilani H (2010) Laparoscopic management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction by division of the aberrant vein and cephalad relocation of the crossing artery: a long-term follow-up of 42 cases. J Endourol 24(6):987–991. doi:10.1089/end.2009.0524
Schneider A, Ferreira CG, Delay C, Lacreuse I, Moog R, Becmeur F (2013) Lower pole vessels in children with pelviureteric junction obstruction: laparoscopic vascular hitch or dismembered pyeloplasty? J Pediatr Urol 9(4):419–423. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.07.005
Singh RR, Govindarajan KK, Chandran H (2010) Laparoscopic vascular relocation: alternative treatment for renovascular hydronephrosis in children. Pediatr Surg Int 26(7):717–720. doi:10.1007/s00383-010-2623-4
Subotic S, Weiss H, Wyler S, Rentsch CA, Rassweiler J, Bachmann A, Teber D (2013) Dismembered and non-dismembered retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. World J Urol 31(3):689–695. doi:10.1007/s00345-012-0887-0
Author contribution
V. Ellerkamp, J. Fuchs: Protocol/project development; V. Ellerkamp, R.R. Kurth S. Zundel: Data collection or management; V. Ellerkamp, R. R. Kurth, E. Schmid: Data analysis; V. Ellerkamp, S. W. Warmann, E. Schmid: Manuscript writing/editing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical standards
The project was approved by the Independent Ethics Committee (IRB-Votum, IEC, Project No. 566/2014R).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ellerkamp, V., Kurth, R.R., Schmid, E. et al. Differences between intrinsic and extrinsic ureteropelvic junction obstruction related to crossing vessels: histology and functional analyses. World J Urol 34, 577–583 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1645-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1645-x