Advertisement

Adult Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction

  • Sarah P. ConleyEmail author
  • Benjamin R. Lee
Chapter
Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)

Abstract

Historically the gold standard for the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) has been open pyeloplasty. However, since laparoscopic-assisted pyeloplasty was first described by Schuessler et al. in 1993, the minimally invasive approach has gained wide popularity and acceptance among both academic and community urologists [1, 2]. The goal of correcting a UPJO is not to reverse damage which the kidney has already sustained but to prevent further deterioration of function and to relieve symptoms. Laparoscopic or robotic approaches to correction of UPJO have been well documented in the literature, including reduction in hospital stay, decreased postoperative analgesic requirements, and reduced incision size and amount of esthetically undesirable scarring [3].

Keywords

Laparoscopy Robotics Ureteral obstruction Kidney 

Supplementary material

Robotic Assisted Pyeloplasty for Adult Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction (56.3 MB)

References

  1. 1.
    Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1795–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tan BJ, Rastinehad AR, Marcovich R, Smith AD, Lee BR. Trends in ureteropelvic junction obstruction management among urologists in the United States. Urology. 2005;65:260–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA. Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol. 2006;175:683–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhayani SB, Link RE, Varkarakis JM, Kavoussi LR. Complete daVinci versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. J Endourol. 2005;19:327–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McDougall EM, Finley D, Clayman RV, et al. Basic urologic laparoscopy: a standardized guideline for training programs. AUA 2005.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R. Anderson–Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology. 2002;60:509–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patel V. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology. 2005;66:45–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chammas MF Jr, Hubert J, Patel VR. Robotically assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a transatlantic comparison of techniques and outcomes. BJU Int. 2007;99:1113–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yanke BV, Lallas CD, Pagnani C, McGinnis DE, Bagley DH. The minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a review of our experience during the last decade. J Urol. 2008;180:1397–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2008;180:1391–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schwentner C, Pelzer A, Neururer R, et al. Robotic Anderson–Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Int. 2007;100:880–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mendez-Torres F, Woods M, Thomas R. Technical modifications for robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2005;19:393–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hemal AK, Mishra S, Mukharjee S, Suryavanshi M. Robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in patients of ureteropelvic junction obstruction with previously failed open surgical repair. Int J Urol. 2008;15:744–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sergi F, Flammia GP, Alcini A, et al. Collagen changes in the ureteropelvic junction after failed antegrade endopyelotomy. J Endourol. 2007;21:103–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Andreoni CR, Lin HK, Olweny E, Landman J, Lee D, Bostwick D, Clayman RV. Comprehensive evaluation of ureteral healing after electrosurgical endopyelotomy in a porcine model: original report and review of the literature. J Urol. 2004;171:859–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Palese MA, Stifelman MD, Munver R, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: a combined experience. J Endourol. 2005;19:382–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yanke BV, Lallas CD, Pagnani C, Bagley DH. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: technical considerations and outcomes. J Endourol. 2008;22:1291–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kumar R, Yadav R, Kolla SB. Simultaneous bilateral robot-assisted dismembered pyeloplasties for bilateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction: technique and literature review. J Endourol. 2007;21:750–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, Chen RN, Iverson AJ, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol. 1999;162:692–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, Schuessler WW, Moore RG. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology. 1995;46:791–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ost MC, Kaye JD, Guttman MJ, Lee BR, Smith AD. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus antegrade endopyelotomy: comparison in 100 patients and a new algorithm in the minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2005;66:47–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soulie M, Thoulouzan M, Seguin P, et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty with a minimal incision: comparison of two surgical approaches. Urology. 2001;57:443–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Link RE, Bhayani S, Kavoussi LR. A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg. 2006;243:486–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyTulane University School of MedicineNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations