Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of surgical approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Endopyeloplasty versus endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several minimally invasive approaches to treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction are now in the urologist’s armamentarium. This review provides in-depth analysis of endopyelotomy, endopyeloplasty, and laparoscopic pyeloplasty and suggests a treatment algorithm for proper patient selection to improve efficacy and minimize morbidity.

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 

  3. Motola JA, Badlani GH, Smith AD: Results of 212 consecutive endopyelotomies: an 8-year followup. J Urol 1993, 149:453–456.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pardalidis NP, Papatsoris AG, Kosmaoglou EV: Endoscopic and laparoscopic treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2002, 168:1937–1940.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Parkin J, Evans S, Kumar PVS, et al.: Endoluminal ultrasonography before retrograde endopyelotomy: can the results match laparoscopic pyeloplasty? BJU Int 2003, 91:389–391.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Knudsen BE, Cook AJ, Watterson JD, et al.: Percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy: long-term results from one institution. Urology 2004, 63:230–234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sim HG, Tan YH, Wong MYC: Contemporary results of endopyelotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2005, 34:179–183.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. Lam JS, Cooper KL, Greene TD, Gupta M: Impact of hydronephrosis and renal function on treatment outcome: antegrade versus retrograde endopyelotomy. Urology 2003, 61:1107–1112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sofras F, Livadas K, Alivizatos G, et al.: Retrograde acucise endopyelotomy: is it worth its cost? J Endourol 2004, 18:466–468.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kapoor R, Zaman W, Kumar A, Srivastava A: Endopyelotomy in poorly functioning kidney: is it worthwhile? J Endourol 2001, 15:725–728.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gupta M, Tuncay OL, Smith AD: Open surgical exploration after failed endopyelotomy: A 12-year perspective. J Urol 1997, 157:1613–1619.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 

  14. Danuser H, Hochreiter WW, Ackermann DK, Studer UE: Influence of stent size on the success of antegrade endopyelotomy for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: results of 2 consecutive series. J Urol 2001, 166:902–909.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mandhani A, Kapoor R, Zaman W, et al.: Is a 2-week duration sufficient for stenting in endopyelotomy? J Urol 2003, 169:886–889.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dimarco DS, Gettman MT, McGee SM, et al.: Long-term success of antegrade endopyelotomy compared with pyeloplasty at a single institution. J Endourol 2006, 20:707–712.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Albani JM, Yost AJ, Streem SB: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: determining durability of endourological intervention. J Urol 2004, 171:579–582.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ng CS, Yost AJ, Streem SB: Management of failed primary intervention for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: 12-year, single-center experience. Urology 2003, 61:291–296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sundaram CP, Grubb RL 3rd, Rehman J, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2003, 169:2037–2040.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Minervini A, Davenport K, Keeley FX, Timoney AG: Antegrade versus retrograde endopyelotomy for pelvi-ureteric junction (PUJ) obstruction. Eur Urol 2006, 49:536–543.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mufarrij P, Sandhu JS, Coll DM, Vaughan ED: Page kidney as a complication of percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy. Urology 2005, 65:592–594.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chiong E, Consigliere D: Antegrade ureteral intussusception: a rare complication of percutaneous endopyelotomy. Urology 2004, 64:1231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Preminger GM, Clayman RV, Nakada SY, et al.: A multicenter clinical trial investigating the use of 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 

  24. Walz J, Lecamus C, Lechevallier E, et al.: Complications of “Acucise” balloon endopyelotomy. Prog Urol 2003, 13:39–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 

  26. Schwartz BF, Stoller ML: Complications of retrograde balloon cautery endopyelotomy. J Urol 1999, 162:1594–1598.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 

  28. Matin SF, Yost A, Streem SB: Ureteroscopic laser endopyelotomy: a single center experience. J Endourol 2003, 17:401–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Giddens JL, Grasso M: Retrograde endoscopic endopyelotomy using the holmium: YAG laser. J Urol 2000, 164:1509–1512.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 

  31. Desai MM, Gill IS, Carvalhal EF, et al.: Percutaneous endopyeloplasty: a novel technique. J Endourol 2002, 16:431–443.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gill IS, Desai MM, Kaouk JH, et al.: Percutaneous endopyeloplasty: description of a new technique. J Urol 2002, 168:2097–2102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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 

  34. Desai MM, Spaliviero M, Desai MR, Gill IS: Percutaneous endopyeloplasty: Current clinical status. Contemp Urol 2007, In press.

  35. Ost MC, Kaye JD, Guttman MJ, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus antegrade endopyelotomy: comparison in 100 patients and a new algorithm for the minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 2005, 66(Suppl 5):47–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sharp DS, Desai MM, Molina WR, et al.: Dismembered percutaneous endopyeloplasty: a new procedure. J Endourol 2005, 19:210–217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM: Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993, 150:1795–1799.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ong AM, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. BJU Int 2005, 95(Suppl 2):102–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Mandhani A, Kumar D, Kumar A, et al.: Safety profile and complications of transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a critical analysis. J Endourol 2005, 19:797–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Yurkanin JP, Fuchs GJ: Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloureteroplasty: a single institution’s 3-year experience. J Endourol 2004, 18:765–769.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lopez-Pujals A, Leveillee RJ, Wong C: Application of strict radiologic criteria to define success in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2004, 18:756–760.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Siqueira TM, Nadu A, Kuo RL, et al.: Laparoscopic treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 2002, 60:973–978.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Soulie M, Salomon L, Patard JJ, et al.: Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a multicenter study of 55 procedures. J Urol 2001, 166:48–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Wyler SF, Bachmann A, Casella R, et al.: Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Endourol 2004, 18:948–951.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, et al.: Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcomes. J Urol 1999, 162:692–695.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, et al.: Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2003, 44:340–345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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 

  48. Palese MA, Stifelman MD, Munver R, et al.: Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: a combined experience. J Endourol 2005, 19:382–386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mendez-Torres F, Woods M, Thomas R: Technical modifications for robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2005, 19:393–396.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Siddiq FM, Leveillee RJ, Villicana P, Bird VG: Computer-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: University of Miami experience with the daVinci Surgical System. J Endourol 2005, 19:387–392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Patel V: Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 2005, 66:45–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Gettman MT, Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G: A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur Urol 2002, 42:453–457.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bhayani SB, Link RE, Varkarakis JM, Kavoussi LR: Complete da Vinci™ versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. J Endourol 2005, 19:327–332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Aron M, Desai MM, Haber G-P, et al.: Routine transposition of anterior crossing vessels during laparoscopic pyeloplasty: is it necessary. Urology 2007, In press.

  56. Miller SD: Transpostion during dismembered pyeloplasty in the presence of a crossing vessel is unnecessary: an observation during retroperitoneal laparoscopic repair [abstract]. J Urol 2005.

  57. Davenport K, Minervini A, Timoney AG, Keeley FX: Our experience with retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2005, 48:973–977.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Frauscher F, Janetschek G, Klauser A, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for UPJ obstruction with crossing vessels: contrast-enhanced color Doppler findings and long-term outcome. Urology 2002, 59:500–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ramakumar S, Lancini V, Chan Dy, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with concomitant pyelolithotomy. J urol 2002, 167:1378–1380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Atug F, Castle EP, Burgess SV, Thomas R: Concomitant management of renal calculi and pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction with robotic laparoscopic surgery. BJU Int 2005, 96:1365–1368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Bove P, Ong AM, Rha KH, et al.: Laparoscopic management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in patients with upper urinary tract anomalies. J Urol 2004, 171:77–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Varkarakis IM, Bhayani SB, Allaf ME, et al.: Management of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction after failed primary laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 2004, 172:180–182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Rabah D, Soderdahl DW, McAdams PD, et al.: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: does CT angiography allow better selection of therapeutic modalities and better patient outcome? J Endourol 2004, 18:427–430.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. El-Nahas AR, Abou-El-Ghar M, Shoma AM, et al.: Role of multiphasic helical computed tomography in planning surgical treatment for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. BJU Int 2004, 94:582–587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Desai MM, Hegarty N: Contemporary surgical management of adult ureteropelvic junction obstruction. AUA Update Series. Houston, TX; 2007, In press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cleveland Clinic, Glickman Urological Institute, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A100, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Mihir M. Desai

Authors
  1. Robert J. Stein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Inderbir S. Gill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mihir M. Desai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mihir M. Desai.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stein, R.J., Gill, I.S. & Desai, M.M. Comparison of surgical approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Endopyeloplasty versus endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Curr Urol Rep 8, 140–149 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-007-0064-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-007-0064-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation