Korean J Urol. 2006 Dec;47(12):1302-1308. Korean.
Published online Dec 31, 2006.
Copyright © 2006 The Korean Urological Association
Original Article

Initial Experience of Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Retrograde Stenting Using Flexible Cystoscopes

Bum Sik Kim, Seung Hyo Woo, Hyun Young Han,1 and Seung Bae Lee
    • Department of Urology, Eulji University, Daejeon, Korea.
    • 1Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Eulji University, Daejeon, Korea.
Received June 09, 2006; Accepted August 07, 2006.

Abstract

Purpose

To describe our initial experience of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, with retrograde stenting, using flexible cystoscopes, in 9 cases of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).

Materials and Methods

Between September, 2004 and January, 2006, 9 cases of UPJO were treated by laparoscopic pyeloplasty. All of the medical records were reviewed retrospectively. The cases comprised of 5 males and 4 females, with a mean age of 37 years (13-58). All patients showed a preoperative grade 4 hydronephrosis.

Results

Two laparoscopic pyeloplasty approaches were performed; a transperitoneal approach in 5 cases and a retroperitoneal approach in the other 4. All cases were treated with dismembered Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. The mean operating time was 249 minutes (170-324), including a mean of 7.1 minutes (6.5-8) for ureteral stenting. The patients were found to have aberrant vessels and renal stones in 1 and 3 cases, respectively. There were no intra-operative complications or open conversion. Of the 9 cases, 8 (89%) showed a decrease in their hydronephrosis grade on the excretory urographs taken 12 weeks postoperatively. The remaining case showed a marked improvement in the hydronephrosis, despite having no change in the hydronephrosis grade. No case experienced postoperative flank pain or recurrence of acute pyelonephritis. Therefore, symptomatic improvements were observed in all our cases (100%).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty, with retrograde stenting, using flexible cystoscopes, can be considered an effective and convenient method for the treatment of UPJO.

Keywords
Ureteral obstruction; Laparoscopy; Cystoscopy

Figures

Fig. 1
Port sites for transperitoneal (A) and retroperitoneal (B) laparoscopic pyeloplasty. 1. 10mm Hasson trocar, 2. Rt. side operation: 11mm trocar is used, Lt. side operation: 5mm trocar is used, 3. Rt. side operation: 5mm trocar is used, Lt. side operation: 11mm trocar is used. AAL: anterior axillary line, MAL: mid-axillary line, PAL: posterior axillary line.

Fig. 2
Laparoscopic view of a double J stent insertion: black indicator of double J stent is passing by the anastomosis site (lower).

Fig. 3
A (preoperative) and B (postoperative) show no change in the hydronephrosis grade from preoperative grade 4/4 to postoperative grade 4/4. However, the postoperative film shows a marked decrease in the dilation of the pelvis and calyces.

Tables

Table 1
Patient characteristics & radiologic outcomes

Table 2
Operative results

References

    1. Lowe FC, Marschall FF. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. Urology 1984;23:331–335.
    1. O'Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S, Jones M, Pickup C, Atkinson C, et al. The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int 2001;87:287–289.
    1. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993;150:1795–1799.
    1. Kavoussi LR, Peters CA. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993;150:1891–1894.
    1. Streem SB, Franke JJ, Smith JA Jr. Management of upper urinary tract obstruction. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED Jr, Wein AJ, editors. Campbell's urology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2002. pp. 487-489.
    1. Hwangbo K, Seo SI, Kim JC, Hwang TK. Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty. Korean J Urol 2003;44:624–627.
    1. Seo IY, Park SC, Oh SJ. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with transperitoneal approach for ureteropelvic obstruction. Korean J Urol 2005;46:370–374.
    1. Talner LB, O'Reilly PH, Roy C. Urinary obstruction. In: Pollack HM, McClennan BL, Dyer R, Kenney PJ, editors. Clinical urography. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2000. pp. 1846-1966.
    1. Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, Schuessler WW, Moore RG. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology 1995;46:791–795.
    1. Van Cangh PJ, Jorion JL, Wese FX, Opsomer RJ. Endoureteropyelotomy: percutaneous treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 1989;141:1317–1321.
    1. Van Cangh PJ, Wilmart JF, Opsomer RJ, Abi-Aad A, Wese FX, Lorge F. Long-term results and late recurrence after endoureteropyelotomy: a critical analysis of prognostic factors. J Urol 1994;151:934–937.
    1. Motola JA, Badlani GH, Smith AD. Results of 212 consecutive endopyelotomies: an 8-year followup. J Urol 1993;149:453–456.
    1. Tan BJ, Smith AD. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair: when, how, what? Curr Opin Urol 2004;14:55–59.
    1. Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, Fugita O, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol 2002;167:1253–1256.
    1. Zhang X, Li HZ, Wang SG, Ma X, Zheng T, Fu B, et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: experience with 50 cases. Urology 2005;66:514–517.

Metrics
Share
Figures

1 / 3

Tables

1 / 2

PERMALINK