Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Minimally Invasive Techniques for the Management of Adult UPJ Obstruction

  • Minimally Invasive Surgery (T Guzzo, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is a common congenital abnormality that often presents in adulthood. Open dismembered pyeloplasty was considered the gold standard for the management of this condition; however, recent advancements in laparoscopic and robotic surgery have dramatically shifted the landscape to more minimally invasive techniques. A literature search of ureteropelvic junction obstruction, pyeloplasty, endopyelotomy, laparoscopic pyeloplasty, robotic pyeloplasty, and microlaparoscopic pyeloplasty was performed. A focus was placed on literature published since 2013. Minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic techniques have become the gold standard for the management of UPJO. With the rise of robotic pyeloplasty, open repairs are becoming less frequent, while endoscopic treatments have remained stable. Minimally invasive (robotic) techniques have become the gold standard for the management of UPJO. Newer, even less-invasive techniques are also showing promise, but technical challenges still exist.

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

  1. Khan F, Ahmed K, Lee N, Challacombe B, Khan MS, Dasgupta P. Management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. Nat Rev Urol. 2014;11(11):629–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson JC, Hynes W. Retrocaval ureter; a case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol. 1949;21(3):209–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Autorino R, Eden C, El-ghoneimi A, et al. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):430–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150(6):1795–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology. 2002;60(3):509–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bansal P, Gupta A, Mongha R, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: comparison of two surgical approaches—a single centre experience of three years. Indian J Surg. 2011;73(4):264–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Hanske J, Sanchez A, Schmid M, et al. Comparison of 30-day perioperative outcomes in adults undergoing open versus minimally invasive pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: analysis of 593 patients in a prospective national database. World J Urol. 2015;33(12):2107–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Oberlin DT, Mcguire BB, Pilecki M, et al. Contemporary national surgical outcomes in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2015;85(2):363–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Monn MF, Bahler CD, Schneider EB, Sundaram CP. Emerging trends in robotic pyeloplasty for the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. J Urol. 2013;189(4):1352–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jacobs BL, Kaufman SR, Morgenstern H, Hollenbeck BK, Wolf JS, Hollingsworth JM. Trends in the treatment of adults with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Endourol. 2013;27(3):355–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Dobry E, Usai P, Studer UE, Danuser H. Is antegrade endopyelotomy really less invasive than open pyeloplasty? Urol Int. 2007;79(2):152–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ost MC, Kaye JD, Guttman MJ, Lee BR, Smith AD. 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(5 Suppl):47–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Szydełko T, Kopeć R, Kasprzak J, et al. Antegrade endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009;19(1):45–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rassweiler JJ, Subotic S, Feist-schwenk M, et al. Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: long-term experience with an algorithm for laser endopyelotomy and laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2007;177(3):1000–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yong D, Albala DM. Endopyelotomy in the age of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. Curr Urol Rep. 2010;11(2):74–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Elabd SA, Elbahnasy AM, Farahat YA, et al. Minimally-invasive correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: do retrograde endo-incision techniques still have a role in the era of laparoscopic pyeloplasty? Ther Adv Urol. 2009;1(5):227–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Stravodimos KG, Giannakopoulos S, Tyritzis SI, et al. Simultaneous laparoscopic management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction and renal lithiasis: the combined experience of two academic centers and review of the literature. Res Rep Urol. 2014;6:43–50.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rivas JG, Alonso y gregorio S, Sánchez LC, et al. Approach to kidney stones associated with ureteropelvic junction obstruction during laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Cent Eur J Urol. 2014;66(4):440–4.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Zheng J, Yan J, Zhou Z, et al. Concomitant treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction and renal calculi with robotic laparoscopic surgery and rigid nephroscopy. Urology. 2014;83(1):237–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vannahme M, Mathur S, Davenport K, Timoney AG, Keeley FX. The management of secondary pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction—a comparison of pyeloplasty and endopyelotomy. BJU Int. 2014;113(1):108–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Patel T, Kellner CP, Katsumi H, Gupta M. Efficacy of endopyelotomy in patients with secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Endourol. 2011;25(4):587–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wu Z, Feng C, Ding Q, Jiang H, Zhang Y. Ureteroscopic holmium:YAG laser endopyelotomy is effective in distinctive ureteropelvic junction obstructions. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2011;6(3):144–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Seregin AV, Egorov MI, Gabdurkhmanov II, Seregin AA. [Antegrade endopyelotomy in the treatment of patients with pelvicoureteral segment stricture in combination with urolithiasis]. Urologiia. 2011;(5):61–5.

  24. Feng CC, Dong G, Hang Z, et al. Ho:YAG Laser Endopyelotomy is effective for primary and secondary UPJOs. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2015.

  25. Yang B, Hu H, Wang J, Xu T, Huang XB, Wang XF. Percutaneous “sandwich” endopyeloplasty technique: a new endourological measure for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao. 2015;47(4):634–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Abraham GP, Siddaiah AT, Ramaswami K, George D, Das K. Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty. Urol Ann. 2015;7(2):183–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Nishi M, Tsuchida M, Ikeda M, Matsuda D, Iwamura M. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: long-term results. Int J Urol. 2015;22(4):368–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Niver BE, Agalliu I, Bareket R, Mufarrij P, Shah O, Stifelman MD. Analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyleloplasty for primary versus secondary repair in 119 consecutive cases. Urology. 2012;79(3):689–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Thom MR, Haseebuddin M, Roytman TM, Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Figenshau RS. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: outcomes for primary and secondary repairs, a single institution experience. Int Braz J Urol. 2012;38(1):77–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Emiliani E, Breda A. Laser endoureterotomy and endopyelotomy: an update. World J Urol. 2015;33(4):583–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang F, Xu Y, Zhong H. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Urol. 2013;47(4):251–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bernie JE, Venkatesh R, Brown J, Gardner TA, Sundaram CP. Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without robotic assistance. JSLS. 2005;9(3):258–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Link RE, Bhayani SB, Kavoussi LR. A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg. 2006;243(4):486–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kaul S, Shah NL, Menon M. Learning curve using robotic surgery. Curr Urol Rep. 2006;7(2):125–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tasian GE, Wiebe DJ, Casale P. Learning curve of robotic assisted pyeloplasty for pediatric urology fellows. J Urol. 2013;190(4 Suppl):1622–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Arap MA, Torricelli FC, Mitre AI, Chambo JL, Duarte RJ, Srougi M. Lessons from 90 consecutive laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasties in a residency program. Scand J Urol. 2013;47(4):323–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Moore LJ, Wilson MR, Waine E, Masters RS, Mcgrath JS, Vine SJ. Robotic technology results in faster and more robust surgical skill acquisition than traditional laparoscopy. J Robot Surg. 2015;9(1):67–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Passerotti CC, Passerotti AM, Dall’oglio MF, et al. Comparing the quality of the suture anastomosis and the learning curves associated with performing open, freehand, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in a swine animal model. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208(4):576–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Seideman CA, Sleeper JP, Lotan Y. Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2012;26(8):1044–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Casella DP, Fox JA, Schneck FX, Cannon GM, Ost MC. Cost analysis of pediatric robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2013;189(3):1083–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wu Y, Dong Q, Han P, Liu L, Wang L, Wei Q. Meta-analysis of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approaches of laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22(7):658–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Shoma AM, El nahas AR, Bazeed MA. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a prospective randomized comparison between the transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneoscopy. J Urol. 2007;178(5):2020–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Singh V, Sinha RJ, Gupta DK, Kumar V, Pandey M, Akhtar A. Prospective randomized comparison between transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty and retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. JSLS. 2014;18(3).

  44. Autorino R, Cadeddu JA, Desai MM, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in urology: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):26–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Park SK, Olweny EO, Best SL, Tracy CR, Mir SA, Cadeddu JA. Patient-reported body image and cosmesis outcomes following kidney surgery: comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site, laparoscopic, and open surgery. Eur Urol. 2011;60(5):1097–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rais-bahrami S, Moreira DM, Hillelsohn JH, et al. Contemporary perspectives on laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urologic training and practice. J Endourol. 2013;27(6):727–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Brandao LF, Laydner H, Zargar H, et al. Laparoendoscopic single site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for transperitoneal pyeloplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Ann. 2015;7(3):289–96.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Buffi NM, Lughezzani G, Fossati N, et al. Robot-assisted, single-site, dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction with the new da Vinci platform: a stage 2a study. Eur Urol. 2015;67(1):151–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Benson AD, Juliano TM, Viprakasit DP, Herrell SD. Microlaparoscopy versus conventional laparoscopy in transperitoneal pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2014;28(12):1404–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Fiori C, Morra I, Bertolo R, Mele F, Chiarissi ML, Porpiglia F. Standard vs mini-laparoscopic pyeloplasty: perioperative outcomes and cosmetic results. BJU Int. 2013;111(3 Pt B):E121–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Rosser JC, Olive DL, Zreik T, et al. Decreased performance of skilled laparoscopic surgeons at microlaparoscopy versus traditional laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1996;3(4, Supplement):S44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Haber GP, Crouzet S, Kamoi K, et al. Robotic NOTES (Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery) in reconstructive urology: initial laboratory experience. Urology. 2008;71(6):996–1000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Atallah S, Martin-perez B, Keller D, Burke J, Hunter L. Natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Br J Surg. 2015;102(2):e73–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kim DK, Yoon YE, Han WK, Rha KH. Roles of NOTES and LESS in management of small renal masses. Int J Surg. 2015.

  55. Hellstrom J, Giertz G, Lindblom K. Pathogenesis and treatment of hydronephrosis. J Belg Urol. 1951;20(1):1–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Menon P, Rao KL, Sodhi KS, Bhattacharya A, Saxena AK, Mittal BR. Hydronephrosis: comparison of extrinsic vessel versus intrinsic ureteropelvic junction obstruction groups and a plea against the vascular hitch procedure. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(2):80.e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Chiarenza SF, Bleve C, Fasoli L, et al. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children by polar vessels. Is laparoscopic vascular hitching procedure a good solution? Single center experience on 35 consecutive patients. J Pediatr Surg. 2015.

  58. Villemagne T, Fourcade L, Camby C, Szwarc C, Lardy H, Leclair MD. Long-term results with the laparoscopic transposition of renal lower pole crossing vessels. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(4):174.e1–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Miranda ML, Pereira LH, Cavalaro MA, Pegolo PC, De oliveira-filho AG, Bustorff-silva JM. Laparoscopic transposition of lower pole crossing vessels (vascular hitch) in children with pelviureteric junction obstruction: how to be sure of the success of the procedure? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015;25(10):847–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Szydelko T, Apoznanski W, Koleda P, Rusiecki L, Janczak D. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with cephalad translocation of the crossing vessel—a new approach to the Hellström technique. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2015;10(1):25–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Haga N, Sato Y, Ogawa S, et al. Laparoscopic modified bypass pyeloplasty: a simple procedure for straightforward ureteral spatulation and intracorporeal suturing. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015;47(12):1933–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Ates M, Ozgok Y, Akin Y, Arslan M, Akand M, Hoscan MB. Laparoscopic stepwise-cut double initial stay suture pyeloplasty: our novel surgical technique. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015;25(3):228–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Liatsikos E, Knoll T, Kyriazis I, et al. Unfavorable outcomes of laparoscopic pyeloplasty using barbed sutures: a multi-center experience. World J Urol. 2013;31(6):1441–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Ambani SW, Stuart Jr. J, Khurshid G. Robotic pyeloplasty using barbed suture: technique, controversies and considerations. American Urological Association Annual Meeting; 2015; New Orleans.

  65. Dowson CJ, Sur H, Blacker AJ. 276 Evaluation of barbed sutures for laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Eur Urol Suppl. 2014;13(1), e276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, Urology, 3 PCAM West, Tm 3-334W, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-5127, USA

    Marshall C. Strother

  2. Division of Urology, University of Pennsylvania, 800 Walnut Str, 19th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA

    Phillip Mucksavage

Authors
  1. Marshall C. Strother
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Phillip Mucksavage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Phillip Mucksavage.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Marshall C. Strother and Phillip Mucksavage each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Minimally Invasive Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Strother, M.C., Mucksavage, P. Minimally Invasive Techniques for the Management of Adult UPJ Obstruction. Curr Urol Rep 17, 39 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-016-0593-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-016-0593-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation