Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty

Salvage minimally invasive robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in adults: a systematic review

Introduction

A UPJO is a blockage of the ureter that affects urine flow. UPJO is mainly treated by an open approach, however, in recent years minimally invasive techniques are taking place. These techniques include robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Some patients require a redo after a primary intervention. A systematic review was conducted through the examinations of the efficacy and safety of a robotic redo pyeloplasty in adult patients from previous literature reviews.

Methods

A literature search was made through PubMed. A selection process was done based on our eligibility criteria. The data were represented numerically, listed on tables and analyzed cumulatively using Microsoft Excel.

Results

Twenty studies were included in this review, of which nine were studies on robotic outcomes () (157 patients), 10 on laparoscopic (210 patients), and one review by Zhang et al., focused on both types of surgeries. Two papers (24 patients) from the robotic studies and one paper (21 patients) from the laparoscopic studies were excluded from the intra and post-operative characteristics because not enough data were available and were only included for the success and complication rates. The success rate for the robotic studies was 88.5% while the laparoscopic studies had a success rate of 91%. However, the robotic studies had a complication rate of (11.8%) while the laparoscopic studies had a complication rate of (15.9%). Conversion surgery was required in one patient undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Conclusion

The minimally invasive methods are becoming more viable in adult patients with rUPJO, considering its effectiveness and fast recovery. This can lead to a new era of robotic assisted surgeries to becoming the gold standard.Abbreviations: Systematic review: Redo robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in adults; UPJO = Ureteropelvic junction obstruction; rUPJO = redo ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Comparison of Secondary and Primary Minimally Invasive Pyeloplasty in the Treatment of Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: To compare the outcomes of secondary minimally invasive pyeloplasty (MIP) versus primary MIP for the patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Materials and Methods: We searched all the literature of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library comparing secondary MIP and primary MIP and performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Results: We included 15 studies involving 1637 patients with 1371 in the primary MIP group and 266 in the secondary MIP group. There were no significant differences in length of hospital stays, and the risk of hematuria, urinary tract infection, intestinal obstruction, stent complications, and overall complications (P > .05). Comparing with the secondary MIP group, the primary MIP group has shorter operative time (mean difference [MD] = -36.91 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -50.21 to -23.62, P < .00001), less estimated blood loss (MD = -16.70 mL, 95% CI: -31.60 to -1.80, P = .03), lower risk of urinary leakage and injury of blood vessel (relative risk [RR] = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.11-0.93, P = .04) (RR = 0.10, 95% CI: 0.02-0.61, P = .01), and higher success rate (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02-1.11, P = .003). The robot-assisted pyeloplasty is superior to the laparoscopic pyeloplasty in controlling the amount of blood loss in the secondary operation. Conclusions: Considering the poorer outcomes of secondary surgery, we believe that special attention should be paid to not missing crossing vessels, and it would be more prudent to perform a more definitive procedure with pyeloplasty instead of endopyelotomy for primary UPJO.

Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Propensity score matched analyses of a high-volume center

PURPOSE

Review the experience of redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RLP) in patients with recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in comparison to primary laparoscopic pyeloplasty (PLP) and redo open pyeloplasty (ROP), and determine the feasibility and effectiveness of RLP for recurrent UPJO in children.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients treated with transperitoneal PLP, RLP, and ROP for UPJO from December 2015 to December 2022. The Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance confounding variables. RLP patients were 1:4 matched with PLP and 1:3 matched with ROP. The primary outcomes were failure and post-operative complications. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo grading system.

RESULTS

The study included ten patients who underwent RLP, 43 patients who underwent ROP, and 412 patients who underwent PLP. The follow-up time ranged from 6 to 36 months in the RLP group, 12 to 60 months in the PLP group, and 24 to 54 months in the ROP group. In the RLP group, no failure but three post-operative complications (Clavien grade II) were observed during the follow-up. Compared with the PLP group, the older age, higher weight, larger pre-operative anteroposterior diameter (APD) and APD/cortical thickness (P/C ratio), longer operation time, and post-operative length of stay (LOS) in the RLP group (P < 0.05). After PSM, longer operation time and post-operative LOS were observed in the RLP group (P < 0.05). Compared with the ROP group, the older age, higher weight, and longer post-operative LOS in the RLP group (P < 0.05). After PSM, longer post-operative LOS was observed in the ROP group (P < 0.05). The failure and complication rates were comparable between RLP and PLP or RLP and ROP (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our result demonstrated that RLP performed as well as PLP except for a longer operation time. Compared with ROP, RLP has the advantages of a clearer surgical view, sufficient exposure, clearer anatomical landmark position, and minor trauma with a comparable clinical outcome. On experienced hands, RLP for recurrent UPJO after is a safe and effective procedure and should be considered an excellent alternative to the more commonly recommended ROP in select patients.

A comparative study on the Efficacy of Retroperitoneoscopic Pyeloplasty and Open Surgery for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Children

Objectives:

To compare the therapeutic effect of retroperitoneoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty and open ureteropelvic junction plasty on the ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in children.

Methods:

After the retrospective analysis of clinical data, 78 children with ureteropelvic junction stenosis treated from January, 2012 to June, 2018 were divided into two groups: OP (open pyeloplasty) group (38 cases) and LP (laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty) group (40 cases) according to the surgical methods. The operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative length of stay (LOS), postoperative complication rate, postoperative hydronephrosis improvement and other indicators were compared between the two groups.

Results:

All patients underwent surgery successfully, without conversion to open surgery in LP group. The incidence of postoperative urine leakage and the recovery of hydronephrosis between LP group and OP group 12 months after operation showed no statistically significant difference (P>0.05). The intraoperative bleeding volume, the incidence of postoperative retroperitoneal hematoma, and the postoperative LOS in LP group were lower than those in OP group, while the operation time was longer than that in the OP group, with statistically significant difference (P<0.05).

Conclusion:

Retroperitoneoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty had similar effect with open dismembered pyeloplasty, but faster recovery and fewer complications, so it has become the preferred treatment method for UPJO in children.

[Advance in re-do pyeloplasty for the management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after surgery]

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is characterized by decreased flow of urine down the ureter and increased fluid pressure inside the kidney. Open pyeloplasty had been regarded as the standard management of UPJO for a long time. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty reports high success rates, for both retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches, which are comparable to those of open pyeloplasty. However, open and laparoscopic pyeloplasty have yielded disappointing failure rates of 2.5%-10%. The main causes for recurrent UPJO are severe peripelvic and periureteric fibrosis due to urinary extravasation, ureteral ischemia, and inadequate hemostasis. In addition, failing to diagnose lower pole crossing vessels before or during the primary procedure is also responsible for recurrent UPJO. In addition, poor preoperative split renal function, hydronephrosis, presence of renal stones, patient age, diabetes, prior endopyelotomy history, and retrograde pyelography history were considered as predictors of pyeloplasty failure. The failure is usually defined by persistent pain, persistent radiographic obstruction (infection or stones), continued decline in split renal function, or a combination of the above. And the failure of pye-loplasty often occurs in the first 2 years after the surgery. The available options for managing recurrent UPJO with a salvageable renal unit include endopyelotomy, re-do pyeloplasty, stent implantation, percutaneous nephrostomy, ureterocalicostomy, and nephrectomy. Re-do pyeloplasty has such merits as high successful rates and rare complications, compared with endopyelotomy or ureterocalicostomy. And some investigators think that re-do pyeloplasty should be regarded as the gold standard for secondary therapy if feasible. Open pyeloplasty can enlarge the operating field, facilitate the exposure of the ureteropelvic junction, reduce the difficulty of operation, and thus reduce the occurrence of complications. There are no significant differences among the success rates of re-do pyeloplasty under open approach, traditional laparoscopy and robot-assisted laparoscopy, according to previous reports. However, traditional laparoscopic and robot-assisted pyeloplasty give advantages of cosmetology, small trauma, less postoperative pain, speedy recovery and shorter hospitalization, fewer complications and lower recurrent rates. If the primary pyeloplasty is an open operation in retroperitoneal approach, the traditional laparoscopic and robotic operation with retroperitoneal approach should be considered for secondary repair. The cause of recurrent UPJO should be evaluated before surgery and identified intraoperatively to minimize the possibility of recurrence.

[Advance in re-do pyeloplasty for the management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after surgery]

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is characterized by decreased flow of urine down the ureter and increased fluid pressure inside the kidney. Open pyeloplasty had been regarded as the standard management of UPJO for a long time. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty reports high success rates, for both retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches, which are comparable to those of open pyeloplasty. However, open and laparoscopic pyeloplasty have yielded disappointing failure rates of 2.5%-10%. The main causes for recurrent UPJO are severe peripelvic and periureteric fibrosis due to urinary extravasation, ureteral ischemia, and inadequate hemostasis. In addition, failing to diagnose lower pole crossing vessels before or during the primary procedure is also responsible for recurrent UPJO. In addition, poor preoperative split renal function, hydronephrosis, presence of renal stones, patient age, diabetes, prior endopyelotomy history, and retrograde pyelography history were considered as predictors of pyeloplasty failure. The failure is usually defined by persistent pain, persistent radiographic obstruction (infection or stones), continued decline in split renal function, or a combination of the above. And the failure of pye-loplasty often occurs in the first 2 years after the surgery. The available options for managing recurrent UPJO with a salvageable renal unit include endopyelotomy, re-do pyeloplasty, stent implantation, percutaneous nephrostomy, ureterocalicostomy, and nephrectomy. Re-do pyeloplasty has such merits as high successful rates and rare complications, compared with endopyelotomy or ureterocalicostomy. And some investigators think that re-do pyeloplasty should be regarded as the gold standard for secondary therapy if feasible. Open pyeloplasty can enlarge the operating field, facilitate the exposure of the ureteropelvic junction, reduce the difficulty of operation, and thus reduce the occurrence of complications. There are no significant differences among the success rates of re-do pyeloplasty under open approach, traditional laparoscopy and robot-assisted laparoscopy, according to previous reports. However, traditional laparoscopic and robot-assisted pyeloplasty give advantages of cosmetology, small trauma, less postoperative pain, speedy recovery and shorter hospitalization, fewer complications and lower recurrent rates. If the primary pyeloplasty is an open operation in retroperitoneal approach, the traditional laparoscopic and robotic operation with retroperitoneal approach should be considered for secondary repair. The cause of recurrent UPJO should be evaluated before surgery and identified intraoperatively to minimize the possibility of recurrence.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty as management for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a comparison study with primary pyeloplasty

Background

To analyze the perioperative parameters and outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) and compare them with our series of RALP for primary UPJO. Secondary pyeloplasty can be a challenging procedure because of ureteral devascularization, fibrosis and dense stricture formation. Robotic approach could be adjunct to these repairs.

Methods

Between August 2015 to March 2019, 96 patients in our hospital underwent RALP, with 32 patients as secondary intervention for recurrent UPJO. We compared the perioperative parameters of RALP for both primary UPJO and recurrent UPJO. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, postoperative outcomes and complications from both groups were analyzed and compared.

Results

RALP was successfully performed for all cases in both groups. The median operating time was longer for secondary RALP than for primary RALP [125 (108.5–155) vs. 151 (120–190) minutes, P=0.004]. There were no conversions to open surgery or significant perioperative complications. No difference in blood loss, transfusion rate and perioperative complication rates was noted between the two groups. The success rates were 98.44% (63/64) and 96.88% (31/32) at a median follow up of 32 and 20 months (P=0.001) for the primary and secondary groups, respectively.

Conclusions

Secondary RALP is associated with significantly longer operative time as compared to primary RALP, especially during the exposure of the UPJO, however it is a safe surgical modality for recurrent UPJO with durable outcome. RALP should be an alternative treatment modality for recurrent UPJO whenever the facility and expert are available.

Laparoscopic Disconnected Pyeloplasty to Treat Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction (UPJO) in Children

Background

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic disconnected pyeloplasty in treating ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in children.

Material/Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 122 young children with UPJO treated from February 2015 to February 2018 at our hospital. According to the surgery type, the patients were divided into 2 groups: a laparoscopic surgery group (group A, n=69) and a traditional open surgery group (group B, n=53).

Results

The success rate of laparoscopic disconnected pyeloplasty was 100%, and none of the patients were converted to open surgery. The mean duration of use of painkillers was 27.6±11.3 h in group A and 58.2±18.2 h in group B (p=0.012), the postoperative hospital stay was 7.8±1.5 days in group A and 11.5±2.6 days in group B (p=0.041), and the length of the incision was 1.5±0.4 cm in group A and 5.2±1.1 cm in group B (p=0.007). The incidence rate of poor surgical wound healing was 0% in group A and 7.5% in group B (p=0.020). The incidence rate of ureteral stricture was 4.3% in group A and 3.8% in group B (p=0.874) during follow-up. The 1-year follow-up showed that both the anterior and posterior diameters and glomerular filtration rate were significantly improved from the preoperation period.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic disconnected pyeloplasty to treat UPJO in young children has the same early clinical effectiveness and safety as open surgery, and this procedure has the advantages of minimal trauma, quick recovery, and good cosmetic effect.

Is secondary robotic pyeloplasty safe and effective as primary robotic pyeloplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RLP) has excellent surgical safety and efficacy in primary pyeloplasty. In recent, the application of robotics has explored to more complex surgical conditions such as failed pyeloplasty. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the surgical and clinical outcomes of secondary RLP compared with primary RLP. Following PRISMA guidelines, we carried out an extensive literature search in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar to extract the published articles comparing primary vs. secondary RLP up to April 2019. Interested surgical and clinical outcomes were extracted from each study and then used RevMan 5.3 Software for meta-analysis comparison. Furthermore, the quality of each study was assessed using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Our search has yielded seven studies that met our inclusion criteria. These studies contained 613 vs. 107 patients in primary vs. secondary RLP, respectively. Using random effect model, the analysis showed no statistical difference between the groups in the presence of a crossing vessel, complications, length of hospital stays (LOS), and follow-up period. However, the operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and recurrence rate were significantly higher in the secondary RLP compared with primary RLP (p = 0.004), (p = 0.01), and (p = 0.04), respectively. Our results indicate that secondary RLP is associated with significantly increased operative time and EBL and higher recurrence rates compared with primary RLP. We believe that our findings might help surgeon's decision making in patient selection and consultation during redo pyeloplasty surgical planning.

Robotic Ureteral Reconstruction in the Pediatric Population

Robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery is a safe, minimally invasive technique that has become more widely used in pediatric urology over recent decades. With several advantages over standard laparoscopy, robotic surgery is particularly well-suited to reconstructive surgery involving delicate structures like the ureter. A robotic approach provides excellent access to and visualization of the ureter at all levels. Common applications include upper ureteral reconstruction (e.g., pyeloplasty, ureteropelvic junction polypectomy, ureterocalicostomy, and high uretero-ureterostomy in duplex systems), mid-ureteral reconstruction (e.g., mid uretero-ureterostomy for stricture or polyp), and lower ureteral reconstruction (e.g., ureteral reimplantation and lower ureter-ureterostomy in duplex systems). Herein, we describe each of these robotic procedures in detail.

Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty among children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) is more beneficial than open procedures. However, studies on laparoscopic management of cases with secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (SUPJO) after previous failed pyeloplasty in the pediatric population are lacking. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the difference between redo LP (RLP) and redo open pyeloplasty (ROP) for children with SUPJO, focusing on certain criteria. All recent studies on RLP and ROP in children with SUPJO were searched. Search engines such as Medline, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews were used. Sixty citations were specified. Two reviewers extracted data independently, screened the titles, and assessed the quality of each citation. Continuous data reported as a weighted mean difference (WMD) (95% confidence interval) and dichotomous data reported as relative risk were used. We measured the length of hospital stay (LOS) and operative time using weighted mean and success and complication rates using risk difference and odds ratio (OR). A random effects model was used to pool OR that was tested for heterogeneity. We specified six publications that minutely met our eligibility standards. Meta-analysis of given data resulted in the following: ROP showed reduction in operative time by 12 min (WMD: 12.7 min; P = 0.14). RLP had shorter LOS than ROP (WMD: 0.6 days; P < 0.01). No difference was observed in complication and success rates (OR: 0.8; P = 0.50 and OR: 1.2; P = 0.51, respectively). In conclusion, RLP seems to be better than ROP in terms of LOS reduction; however, both are comparable with respect to success and complication rates, especially postoperative urine leakage.

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction and renal cell carcinoma in a patient with solitary functioning kidney

We present a case of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in a solitary functioning kidney (SFK), managed by robot-assisted dismembered pyeloplasty with partial nephrectomy in a single stage. To our best knowledge, we report the first case of UPJO with RCC in a congenital SFK.

Definitive Management of Failure After Pyeloplasty

INTRODUCTION

Failure after pyeloplasty is difficult to manage. We report our experience managing pyeloplasty failures.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the case log of a single surgeon, from August 1996 to August 2014, to identify all patients undergoing a surgical procedure after failed pyeloplasty. We excluded patients without follow-up exceeding 1 year from initial postpyeloplasty procedure. Failure was defined as a need for additional definitive intervention.

RESULTS

Of 247 laparoscopic pyeloplasties, 68 endopyelotomies and 305 simple laparoscopic nephrectomies reviewed, 41 were performed after previous pyeloplasty and had sufficient follow-up. Laparoscopic nephrectomy was performed in nine patients. All three secondary laparoscopic pyeloplasties were successful. Of 29 secondary endopyelotomies, 10 (34%) were successful. Of the 19 failures after secondary endopyelotomy, 12 patients had tertiary pyeloplasty (5 laparoscopic and 7 open surgical), 5 (26%) underwent tertiary endopyelotomy, and 2 (11%) required nephrectomy. Our overall endopyelotomy success rate was 38% (13/34) vs 100% (11/11) for secondary or tertiary pyeloplasty (4 patients lost to follow-up). Median time to failure was 5 months for endopyelotomy. Median follow-up for patients free from intervention was 40.2 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary pyeloplasty (including both laparoscopic and open surgical approach) is more than twice as successful as endopyelotomy after failed pyeloplasty. Secondary pyeloplasty is an excellent alternative to endopyelotomy in select patients with failure after initial pyeloplasty.