Study of laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty

Authors

  • Raj Gajbhiye Department of Surgery, Indira Gandhi Govt. Medical College, Nagpur, Maharashtra
  • Bhupesh Harish Tirpude Department of Surgery, Indira Gandhi Govt. Medical College, Nagpur, Maharashtra
  • Hemant Bhanarkar Department of Surgery, Indira Gandhi Govt. Medical College, Nagpur, Maharashtra
  • Al-Iquan Fidvi Department of Surgery, Indira Gandhi Govt. Medical College, Nagpur, Maharashtra
  • Ambrish Shamkuwar Department of Surgery, Indira Gandhi Govt. Medical College, Nagpur, Maharashtra

Keywords:

PUJO, Laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty, Safe and feasible

Abstract

Background: Pelvi-Ureteric Junction Obstruction (PUJO) is a common anomaly seen affecting children and adults. The structural wall is most of the times the main reason for obstruction while other causes like stones, infection etc. explain the remaining. Regardless of the cause, the end result is impedance in the normal flow of urine from the renal pelvis into the proximal ureter, resulting in caliectasis and hydronephrosis. There is a scarcity of data regarding feasibility of laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty in connotation with the Indian background. The research aims to study the procedure its feasibility, success rates and complications.  

Methods: This prospective study was carried out in the department of surgery of our hospital, over a period of 2 years from Nov 2011 to Nov 2013. Studies have been approved by the institutional ethics committee and Maharashtra University of health sciences, Nashik and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Results: Out of the 25 patients, there were 14 (56%) males and 11 (44%) females. Male to female ratio was 1.2:1. Of these 13 (52%) were having right sided PUJO and 12 (48%) were having left sided PUJO. 12 (48%) patients were in the age group of 16-30 years, 7 (28%) in 31-45 years age group, 5 (20%) in 0-15 years group and one (4%) patient in 46-60 years age group. 24 (96%) had history flank pain on the affected side. Of this 9 (36%) had only flank pain as there presenting symptom. 11 (44%) had history of recurrent urinary tract Infection. Only one (4%) patient had only recurrent UTI history. 8 (32%) patients had mixed symptoms most commonly associated with flank pain. 6 (24%) patients had renal lump of which 5 (20%) had associated flank pain and 1 (4%) had both UTI and flank pain. The mean VAS score for pain preoperatively is 6.54 ± 1.18. On investigation the mean serum BUL and mean serum creatinine was 36.6 ± 18.7 mg/dl and 1.1 ± 0.59 µg/dl respectively.

Conclusions: Laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty is a safe and feasible. It is associated with excellent patient outcomes with good patient satisfaction. It has direct approach to the target organ. Laying a platform this technique can also be expanded for more other procedure related to kidney and ureter.  

 

References

Munver R, Sosa RE, Del Pizzo JJ. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: history, evolution, and future. M.D. J Endourol. 2004 Oct;18(8):748-55.

Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1795.

El-Ghoneimi A, Farhat W, Bolduc S, Bagli D, Mclorie G, Aigrain Y, et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty by a retroperitoneal approach in children. BJU Int. 2003;92:104-8.

Janetschek G, Peschel R, Altarac S, Bartsch G. Laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Adult Urol. 1996;47:311-6.

Zhang X, Li HZ, Wang SG, Ma X, Zheng T, Fu B, et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: experience with 50 cases. Urology. 2005 Sep;66(3):514-7.

Bachmann A, Ruszat R, Forster T, Eberli D, Zimmermann M, Müller A, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO): solving the technical difficulties. Eur Urol. 2006 Feb;49(2):264-72.

Bryant RJ, Craig E, Oakley N. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: The retroperitoneal approach is suitable for establishing a de novo practice. J Postgrad Med. 2008;54:263-7.

Chuanyu S, Guowei X, Ke X, Qiang D, Yuanfang Z. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered anderson-hynes pyeloplasty in treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (Report of 150 cases). Urology. 2009 Nov;74(5):1036-40.

Gerber GS, Kim JC. Ureteroscopic endopyelotomy in the treatment of patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2000;55:198-202.

Fornara P, Doehn C, Seyfarth M, Jocham D. Why is urological laparoscopy minimally invasive? Eur Urol. 2000;37:241-50.

Cassis AN, Brannen GE, Bush WH, Correa RJ, Chambers M. Endopyelotomy: review of results and complications. J Urol. 1991;146:1492-5.

Meretyk I, Meretyk S, Clayman RV. Endopyelotomy: comparison of ureteroscopic retrograde and antegrade percutaneous techniques. J Urol. 1992;148:775-82.

Motola JA, Badlani GH, Smith AD. Results of 221 consecutive endopyelotomies: an 8-year follow-up. J Urol. 1993;149:453-6.

Nadler RB, Rao GS, Pearle MS, Nakada SY, Clayman RV. Acucise endopyelotomy: assessment of long-term durability. J Urol. 1996;156:1094-7.

Rassweiler J, Subotic S, Feist-Schwenk M. Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: long term experience with an algorithm for laser endopyelotomy and laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2007;177:1000-5.

Yeung CK, Tam YH, Sihoe JD, Lee KH, Liu KW. Retroperitoneoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for pelviureteric junction obstruction in infants and children. BJU Int. 2001;87:509-13.

El-Ghoneimi A, Farhat W, Bolduc S, Bagli D, Mclorie G, Aigrain Y, et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty by a retroperitoneal approach in children. BJU Int. 2003;92:104-8.

Murphy, Leonard JT Desnos E. The history of urology. In: Murphy, Leonard JT Desnos E, eds. A Book. 1st ed. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher; 1972.

Nakada SY, Thomas HS. Management of upper urinary tract obstruction. In: Nakada SY, Thomas HS, eds. Campbell Walsh Urology. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2012: 1122-1147.

Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1795.

Janetschek G, Peschel R, Altarac S, Bartsch G. Laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Adult Urol. 1996;47:311-6.

Chen RN, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Indications, technique, and long-term outcome. Urol Clin North Am. 1998;25:323-30.

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(3 Part 1):692-5.

Kavoussi LR, Peters CA. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1891-4.

Recker F, Subotic B, Goepel M, Tscholl R. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: preliminary report. J Urol. 1995;153:1601-4.

Nakada SY, McDougall EM, Clayman RV. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: preliminary experience. Urology. 1995;46:257-60.

Moore RG, Averch TD, Schulam PG, Adams JB, Chen RN, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Experience with the initial 30 cases. J Urol. 1997;157:459-62.

Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, Fugita O, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol. 2002;167:1253-6.

Downloads

Published

2016-12-11

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles