Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Urology Reports
Published in: Current Urology Reports 2/2010

01-03-2010

Endopyelotomy in the Age of Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Pyeloplasty

Authors: Daniel Yong, David M. Albala

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 2/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Ureteropelvic junction obstructixon (UPJO) management has undergone significant changes in the past few years. The aim of this review is to establish the role of endopyelotomy in the age of laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP). Open pyeloplasty (OP) has been the gold standard of care for UPJO for the past six decades. Due to lower long-term efficacy, endopyelotomy has failed to replace OP. However, laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) has been able to reproduce the high success rates of OP, while also achieving minimal morbidity. Unfortunately, the steep learning curve and technical difficulties have hindered its use. Recently, robot-assisted systems have enabled LP to overcome its disadvantages, and this may render endopyelotomy obsolete. Although LP and RALP are emerging as the gold standard of treatment for UPJO, endopyelotomy could carve out a niche area as a salvage procedure. Endopyelotomy will continue to have a role in the management of UPJO, albeit a smaller one.
Literature
1.
Anderson JC, Hynes W: Retrocaval ureter: a case diagnosed preoperatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol 1949, 21:209–210.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Van Cangh PJ, Wilmart JF, Opsomer RJ, et al.: Long-term results and late recurrence after endoureteropyelotomy: a critical analysis of prognostic factors. J Urol 1994, 151:934–937.PubMed
3.
Gupta M, Tuncay OL, Smith AD: Open surgical exploration after failed endopyelotomy: a 12-year perspective. J Urol 1997, 157:1613–1618; discussion 1618–1619.
4.
Butani RP, Eshghi M: Cold-knife retrograde endopyelotomy: a long-term follow-up. J Endourol 2008, 22:657–660.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Ost MC, Kaye JD, Guttman MJ, et al.: 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(Suppl 5):47–51.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM: Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993, 150:1795–1799.PubMed
7.
Symons SJ, Bhirud PS, Jain V, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: our new gold standard. J Endourol 2009, 23:463–467.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Moon DA, El Shazly MA, Chang CM, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: evolution of a new gold standard. Urology 2006, 67:932–936.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Sung GT, Gill IS, Hsu TH: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a pilot study. Urology 1999, 53:1099–1103.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Wickam JE, Kellet MJ: Percutaneous pyelolysis. Eur Urol 1983, 9:122–124.
11.
Davis DM: Intubated ureterotomy: a new operation for ureteral and ureteropelvic strictures. Surg Gynae Obst 1943, 76:513–523.
12.
Dobry E, Usai P, Studer UE, Danuser H: Is antegrade endopyelotomy really less invasive than open pyeloplasty? Urol Int 2007, 79:152–156.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Knudsen BE, Cook AJ, Watterson JD, et al.: Percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy: long-term results from one institution. Urology 2004, 63:230–234.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Dimarco DS, Gettman MT, McGee SM, et al.: Long-term success of antegrade endopyelotomy compared with pyeloplasty at a single institution. J Endourol 2006, 20:707–712.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Sim HG, Tan YH, Wong M: Contemporary results of endopyelotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2005, 34:179–183.PubMed
16.
Lam JS, Cooper KL, Greene TD, Gupta M: Impact of hydronephrosis and renal function on treatment outcome: antegrade versus retrograde endopyelotomy. Urology 2003, 61:1107–1111; discussion 1111–1112.
17.
Singh P, Jain P, Dharaskar A, et al.: Minimal invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in low volume pelvis: a comparative study of endopyelotomy and laparoscopic nondismembered pyeloplasty. Indian J Urol 2009, 25:68–71.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Vaarala MH, Marttila T, Paananen I, Hellström P: Retrospective analysis of long-term outcomes of 64 patients treated by endopyelotomy in two low-volume hospitals: good and durable results. J Endourol 2008, 22:1659–1664.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Minervini A, Davenport K, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG: Antegrade versus retrograde endopyelotomy for pelvi-ureteric junction (PUJ) obstruction. Eur Urol 2006, 49:536–542; discussion 542–543.
20.
el-Nahas AR, Shoma AM, Eraky I, et al.: Prospective, randomized comparison of ureteroscopic endopyelotomy using holmium:YAG laser and balloon catheter. J Urol 2006, 175:614–618; discussion 618.
21.
Ponsky LE, Streem SB: Retrograde endopyelotomy: a comparative study of hot-wire balloon and ureteroscopic laser. J Endourol 2006, 20:823–826.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Walz J, Lecamus C, Lechevallier E, et al.: Complications of “Acucise” balloon endopyelotomy [in French]. Prog Urol 2003, 13:39–45.PubMed
23.
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, 19:45–51.CrossRefPubMed
24.
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, 177:1000–1005.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ong AM, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. Inagaki BJU Int 2005, 95(Suppl 2):102–105.CrossRef
26.
Talug C, Perlmutter AE, Kumar T, et al.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in a horseshoe kidney. Can J Urol 2007, 14:3773–3775.PubMed
27.
Bove P, Ong AM, Rha KH, et al.: Laparoscopic management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in patients with upper urinary tract anomalies. J Urol 2004, 171:77–79.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Palese MA, Stifelman MD, Munver R, et al.: Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: a combined experience. J Endourol 2005, 19:382–386.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Schwentner C, Pelzer A, Neururer R, et al.: Robotic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Int 2007, 100:880–885.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, et al.: Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol 2008, 180:1391–1396. CrossRefPubMed
31.
Weise ES, Winfield HN: Robotic computer-assisted pyeloplasty versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2006, 20:813–819.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Bentas W, Wolfram M, Bräutigam R, et al.: Da Vinci robot assisted Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty: technique and 1 year follow-up. World J Urol 2003, 21:133–138.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Link RE, Bhayani SB, Kavoussi LR: A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg 2006, 243:486–491.CrossRefPubMed
34.
• Kaouk JH, Hafron J, Parekattil S, et al.: Is retroperitoneal approach feasible for robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: initial experience and long-term results. J Endourol 2008, 22:2153–2159. This article suggests the possibility of UPJO being treated on an outpatient basis by robot-assisted retroperitoneal dismembered pyeloplasty.
35.
Olsen LH, Rawashdeh YF, Jorgensen TM: Pediatric robot assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty: a 5-year experience. J Urol 2007, 178:2137–2141.CrossRefPubMed
36.
• Huber G, Crouzet S, Kamoi K, et al.: Robotic NOTES (natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery) in reconstructive urology: initial laboratory experience. Urology 2008, 71:996–1000. This article describes an exciting new technique that will reduce morbidity of pyeloplasty.
37.
• Kaouk JH, Goel RK, Haber GP, et al.: Robotic single-port transumbilical surgery in humans: initial report. BJU Int 2008, 103:336–339. This article describes an exciting new technique that will reduce morbidity of pyeloplasty.
38.
Atug F, Burgess SV, Castle EP, Thomas R: Role of robotics in the management of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Int J Clin Pract 2006, 60:9–11.CrossRefPubMed
39.
• Canes D, Berger A, Gettman MT, et al.: Minimally invasive approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urol Clin North Am 2008, 35:425–439. This review discusses the minimal invasive approaches to UPJO and describes the current trend. It also provides a treatment algorithm for choosing between the minimally invasive techniques.
40.
• Gallo F, Schenone M, Giberti C: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: which is the best treatment today? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2009, 19:657–662. This is the most recent review of minimal invasive approaches to UPJO, which also describes the current trend.
41.
Rukin NJ, Ashdown DA, Patel P, Liu S: The role of percutaneous endopyelotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2007, 89:153–156.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Guru KA, Hussain A, Chandrasekhar R, et al.: Current status of robot-assisted surgery in urology: a multi-national survey of 297 urologic surgeons. Can J Urol 2009, 16:4736–4741; discussion 4741.
43.
Romero FR, Wagner AA, Trapp C, et al.: Transmesenteric laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 2006, 176:2526–2529.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Chammas MF Jr, Hubert J, Patel VR: Robotically assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a transatlantic comparison of techniques and outcomes. BJU Int 2007, 99:1113–1117.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Endopyelotomy in the Age of Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Pyeloplasty
Authors
Daniel Yong
David M. Albala
Publication date
01-03-2010
Publisher
Current Science Inc.
Published in
Current Urology Reports / Issue 2/2010
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-010-0090-z

Other articles of this Issue 2/2010

Current Urology Reports 2/2010 Go to the issue

ReviewPaper

Adjuncts to Improve Outcomes of Shock Wave Lithotripsy

ReviewPaper

Transvesical Endoscopic Port in Abdominal Surgery: An Updated Perspective

ReviewPaper

Urologic Sports Injuries in Children

ReviewPaper

Biofeedback in the Management of Urinary Continence in Children

ReviewPaper

Evaluation and Follow-Up of Patients with Urinary Lithiasis: Minimizing Radiation Exposure

ReviewPaper

Current Status of Ureteral Stent Technologies: Comfort and Antimicrobial Resistance