PURPOSE: Failed pyeloplasty represents a management dilemma, with treatment options including balloon dilation, endopyelotomy and reoperative pyeloplasty.
We review our experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair of recurrent/persistent ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children and compare this method to other approaches.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed in detail all cases of failed prior ureteropelvic junction procedures, either open or laparoscopic, managed by robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair between 2006 and July 2011.
RESULTS: Robot-assisted laparoscopic repair was performed in 16 cases for persistent or recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following a prior procedure involving the ureteropelvic junction (12 open pyeloplasties, 4 robot-assisted laparoscopic repairs). Additional interventions had been performed in 12 patients. Reoperative robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty was performed in 13 patients and reoperative robot-assisted laparoscopic ureterocalycostomy in 3. Patient age ranged from 12 months to 15.3 years (mean 6.1 years). Mean operative time and length of stay were 303 minutes and 1.6 days, respectively. Mean followup was 14.9 months. All symptomatic patients had resolution of symptoms postoperatively. A total of 14 patients (88%) had improved radiological findings. One patient underwent transfusion and conversion to an open procedure due to bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair of persistent/recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction is a safe, highly effective procedure even in the setting of multiple prior procedures. In our series all patients improved symptomatically, 88% improved radiographically and none have required further surgical intervention. Success is greater than with endopyelotomy and comparable to open reoperative repair for this challenging condition during short-term and intermediate followup.
Written by:
Lindgren BW, Hagerty J, Meyer T, Cheng EY. Are you the author?
Division of Urology, Lurie Children's Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Reference: J Urol. 2012 Sep;188(3):932-7.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.04.118
PubMed Abstract
PMID: 22819409
UroToday.com Pediatric Urology Section
