Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The use of the acucise technique for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A trade-off between efficacy and invasiveness?

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Open pyeloplasty is traditionally the recommended treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. In the past decades, several less invasive procedures emerged with the advantages of lower morbidity and better patient tolerance. In 1993, an electrosurgical cutting balloon device called the Acucise (Applied Medical Resources Corp., Laguna Hills, CA) was introduced. It was presented as a straightforward, safe procedure that can be performed in a complete retrograde fashion under fluoroscopic guidance. Despite these advantages; however, it is not yet a generally excepted procedure. This is mainly due to the fact that specific patient selection is needed, and success rates are comparable with other already established endoscopic procedures. Considering the large variety of minimally invasive procedures available, treatment of choice must be based on several factors such as success rate, morbidity, cost, and surgeon’s experience. Acucise is considered a good alternative for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in selected patients. However, the efficacy is significantly lower than the reference standard.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N, McDougall EM: Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2003, 17:155–160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fallon E, Ercole B, Lee C, et al.: Contemporary management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: practice patterns in Minnesota. J Endourol 2005, 19:41–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Karlin GS, Badlani GH, Smith AD: Endopyelotomy versus open pyeloplasty: comparison in 88 patients. J Urol 1988, 140:476–478.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, et al.: Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology 1995, 46:791–795.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Desai MM, Desai MR, Gill IS: Endopyeloplasty versus endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 2004, 64:16–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gupta M, Tuncay OL, Smith AD: Open surgical exploration after failed endopyelotomy: a 12-year perspective. J Urol 1997, 157:1613–1618.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Meretyk I, Meretyk S, Clayman RV: Endopyelotomy: comparison of ureteroscopic retrograde and antegrade percutaneous techniques. J Urol 1992, 148:775–782.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lam JS, Cooper KL, Greene TD, Gupta M: Impact of hydronephrosis and renal function on treatment outcome: antegrade versus retrograde endopyelotomy. Urology 2003, 61:1107–1111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Cangh PJ, Wilmart JF, Opsomer RJ, et al.: Long-term results and late recurrence after endoureteropyelotomy: a critical analysis of prognostic factors. J Urol 1994, 151:934–937.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Danuser H, Ackermann DK, Bohlen D, Studer UE: Endopyelotomy for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: risk factors determine the success rate. J Urol 1998, 159:56–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nadler RB, Rao GS, Pearle MS, et al.: Acucise endopyelotomy: assessment of long-term durability. J Urol 1996, 156:1094–1097.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Faerber GJ, Richardson TD, Farah N, Ohl DA: Retrograde treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction using the ureteral cutting balloon catheter. J Urol 1997, 157:454–458.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Preminger GM, Clayman RV, Nakada SY, et al.: A multi-center clinical trial investigating the use of a fluoroscopically controlled cutting balloon catheter for the management of ureteral and ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 1997, 157:1625–1629.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Inglis JA, Tolley DA: Ureteroscopic pyelolysis for pelviureteric junction obstruction. Br J Urol 1986, 58:250–252.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. McClinton S, Steyn JH, Hussey JK: Retrograde balloon dilatation for pelviureteric junction obstruction. Br J Urol 1993, 71:152–155.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gettman MT, Lotan Y, Roerhborn CG, et al.: Cost-effective treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a decision tree analysis. J Urol 2003, 169:228–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol 2002, 167:1253–1256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chandhoke PS, Clayman RV, Stone AM, et al.: Endopyelotomy and endoureterotomy with the acucise ureteral cutting balloon device: preliminary experience. J Endourol 1993, 7:45–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Tan BJ, Smith AD: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair: when, how, what? Curr Opin Urol 2004, 14:55–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nakada SY: Acucise endopyelotomy. Urology 2000, 55:277–282.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gelet A, Combe M, Ramackers JM, et al.: Endopyelotomy with the acucise cutting balloon device. Early clinical experience. Eur Urol 1997, 31:389–393.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Biyani CS, Minhas S, el Cast J, et al.: The role of Acucise endopyelotomy in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2002, 41:305–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    Joyce Baard

Authors
  1. Joyce Baard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theodorus M. de Reijke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean J. M. C. H. de la Rosette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joyce Baard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baard, J., de Reijke, T.M. & de la Rosette, J.J.M.C.H. The use of the acucise technique for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A trade-off between efficacy and invasiveness?. Curr Urol Rep 8, 134–139 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-007-0063-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-007-0063-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation