Laparoscopic and Robotic Pyeloplasty

  • Sean P. Hedican
  • Murali K. Ankem
Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)


Laparoscopic pyeloplasty as a treatment option for the obstructed ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) combines the advantage of an open reconstruction under direct magnified vision with the low morbidity of an endoscopic approach. First described as a minimally invasive treatment option by Schuessler and colleagues in 1993 (1), there are several large published series with extended follow-up confirming long-term patency rates of 96–100% (2). These results parallel the outcomes of the prior gold standard approach (i.e., open pyeloplasty) and exceed what is observed with endoscopic incisional operations. As demonstrated with other minimally invasive operations, patients undergoing laparoscopic pyeloplasty have reduced analgesic requirements, hospital stays, and time until return of full activities compared to their open surgery counter-parts (3). The recovery as compared to endopyelotomy is less clear. Though technically challenging, the low incidence of failure combined with reduced postoperative morbidity has made this an increasingly popular treatment option at institutions offering this approach.


Veress Needle Ureteropelvic Junction Needle Driver Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty Robotic Port 
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.


  1. 1.
    Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, et al.: Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 150: 1795, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol 176: 1253, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen RN, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Indications, technique, and long-term outcome. Urol Clin N Amer 25: 323, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Varkarakis IM, Bhayani SB, Allaf ME, et al.: Management of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction after failed primary laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 172: 180, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA: Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 175: 683, 2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patel V: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 66: 45, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cadeddu JA, Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty using an automated suturing device. In: Olsson CA (ed.). Current Surgical Techniques in Urology. Wilmington: Medical Publications, Inc; 1997; Vol. 10 (Issue 3).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sean P. Hedican
    • 1
  • Murali K. Ankem
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadison
  2. 2.Division of Urology, Department of SurgeryRobert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New JerseyNew Brunswick

Personalised recommendations