Advertisement

Current Urology Reports

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 111–117 | Cite as

Pathophysiology and treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction

  • Brent Williams
  • Basir Tareen
  • Martin I. Resnick
Article

Abstract

This paper reviews the current literature on both the pathophysiology and treatment options for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). A medical literature search using Pubmed/MEDLINE that addressed both the pathophysiology of UPJO and the different treatment options for the adult and pediatric population with UPJO was performed. The pathophysiology of UPJO is still unknown but appears to be multifactorial. Perhaps future molecular studies will give us an answer to the etiology and also a pathway in preventing UPJO. Treatment options have been studied in-depth, and the gold standard is open pyeloplasty. In both the pediatric and adult population, laparoscopic or robotic pyeloplasty has similar success rates to open pyeloplasty with the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. In the pediatric population, however, further studies need to be done. Endopyelotomy also has a role in the treatment of UPJO but should have strict selection criteria.

Keywords

Renal Pelvis Ureteropelvic Junction Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty Strict Selection Criterion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Grasso M, Gitlin J: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction. eMedicine 2001. http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3074.htm.
  2. 2.
    Walsh PC, Vaughan ED, Retik AB, Wein A: Campbell’s Urology, edn 8. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ruano-Gil D, Tejedo-Mateu A: Human embryo (12mm) with mesohydronephrosis and ureterohydronephrosis. Acta Anat 1975, 93:135–140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pope J I V, Brock J III, Adams M, et al.: How they begin and how they end: classic and new theories for the development and deterioration of congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract, CAKUT. J Am Soc Nephrol 1999, 10:2018–2028.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allen TD: Congenital ureteral strictures. J Urol 1970, 104:196–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koff S, Hayden L, Cirulli C, et al.: Pathophysiology of UPJ: experimental and clinical observations. J Urol 1986, 136:336–338.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murnaghan GF: The dynamics of the renal pelvis and ureter with reference to congenital hydronephrosis. Br J Urol 1958, 30:321–329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foote JW, Blennerhassett JB, Wiglesworth FW, Mackinnon KJ: Observations on the ureteropelvic junction. J Urol 1970, 104:252–257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanna MK: Some observations on congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 1978, 12:151–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aoki Y, Mori S, Kitajima K, et al.: Id2 haploinsufficiency in mice leads to congenital hydronephrosis resembling that in humans. Genes Cells 2004, 9:1287–1296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nishimura H, Yerkes E, Hohenfellner K, et al.: Role of angiotensin type 2 receptor gene in congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract, CAKUT, of mice and men. Moll Cell 1999, 3:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Solari V, Piaseczna Piotrowska A, Puri P: Altered expression of interstitial cells of cajal in congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2003, 170:2420–2422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kajbafzadeh A, Payabvash S, Salmasi A, et al.: Smooth Muscle cell apoptosis and defective neural development in congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2006, 176:718–723.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chang C, McDill B, Neilson J, et al.: Calcineurin is required in urinary tract mesenchyme for the pyeloureteral peristaltic machinery. J Clin Invest 2004, 113:1051–1058.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mendez-Torres F, Urena R, Thomas R: Retrograde ureteroscopic endopyelotomy. Urol Clin North Am, 31:99–106.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Albani J, Agnes Y, Streem S: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: determining durability of endourological intervention. J Urol 2004, 171:579–582.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    El-Nahas AR, Shoma AM, Eraky I, et al.: Prospective, randomized comparison of ureteroscopic endopyelotomy using holmium: YAG laser and balloon catheter. J Urol 2006, 175:614–618.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weikert S, Christoph F, Muller M, et al.: Acucise endopyelotomy: a technique with limited efficacy for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. Int J Urol 2005, 12:864–868.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Figenshau R, Clayman R, Colberg J, et al.: Pediatric endopyelotomy: the Washington University experience. J Urol 1996, 156:2025–2030.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tan H, Janmakin A, Webb D, et al.: Endopyelotomy for pelvi-ureteric junction in children. Eur Urol 1993, 24:84–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Faerber G, Ritchey M, Bloom D: Percutaneous endopyelotomy in infants and young children after failed open pyeloplasty. J Urol 1995, 154:1495–1497.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baldwin D, Dunbar J, Wells N, et al.: Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J of Endourol 2003, 17:155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jarrett T, Chan D, Charambura T, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol 2002, 167:1253–1256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eden C, Gianduzzo T, Chang C, et al.: Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary and secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2004, 172:2308–2311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sundaram C, Grubb R III, Rehman J, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2003, 169:2037–2040.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gupta M, Tuncay O, Smith A: Open surgical exploration after failed endopyelotomy: a 12 year perspective. J Urol 1997, 157:1613–1618.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tan H: Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 1999, 162:1045–1047.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kutikov A, Resnick M, Casale P: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the infant younger than 6 months-is it technically possible. J Urol 2006, 175:1477–1479.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bonnard A, Fouquet V, Carricaburu E, et al.: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 2005, 173:1710–1713.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G, et al.: Robotic pyeloplasty: technique and results. Urol Clin North Am 2004, 31:737–741.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gettman M, Neururer R, Bartsch G, et al.: Anderson-Hynes dimembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology 2002, 60:509–513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bentas W, Wolfram M, Brautigam R, et al.: Da Vinci robot assisted Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty: technique and 1 year follow-up. World J Urol 2003, 21:133–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee R, Retik A, Borer J, et al.: Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 2006, 175:683–687.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kutikov A, Nguyen M, Guzzo T, et al.: Robot assisted pyeloplasty in the infant-lessons learned. J Urol 2006, 176:2237–2240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brent Williams
  • Basir Tareen
  • Martin I. Resnick
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyCase Medical Center/University HospitalClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations