González-Cuenca E, Medrano-Urtecho HM, Corona-Montes VE, Maldonado-Ávila M, Rosas-Nava JE

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 1-8
PDF size: 157.25 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Aim: Our primary aim was to report the prevalence of recurrent stricture following primary pyeloplasty and the secondary treatment performed. The secondary aim was to identify the clinical or surgical factors related to recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).
Materials and methods: A retrospective study was conducted on patients diagnosed with UPJO at the Hospital General de México “Dr. Eduardo Liceaga”, between 2011-2019. Patients that underwent primary pyeloplasty, and developed recurrent UPJO, underwent secondary treatment, and had follow-up ≥6 months were included in the study. A descriptive analysis was carried out.
Results: A total of 52 patients underwent open or laparoscopic pyeloplasty as primary treatment and 6 of them (11.5%) presented with recurrent UPJO at 44 months (median). Two of those patients presented with a non-functioning kidney and underwent simple laparoscopic nephrectomy and the remaining 4 patients underwent transperitoneal laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty as secondary treatment. The mean age of the patients with recurrence was 46 years, their mean BMI was 32.57±5 kg/m2, and two of them had urinary diversion prior to the primary pyeloplasty. Surgery duration was longer for laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty versus primary pyeloplasty (192 minutes versus 113 minutes) and intraoperative bleeding was similar (52cc versus 52.9cc). The surgical and histologic finding in laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty was peri-ureteral fibrosis. No aberrant vessels were found. Stricture was longer than 15 mm in the patients that underwent laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty (n=4). Obesity, lithiasis, and stricture length ›15mm were more frequent in the patients with recurrence.
Conclusions: The prevalence of UPJO in our study population was 11.5%, which concurs with international parameters. Laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty is a useful tool in cases of UPJO.

REFERENCES

1. Park JM, Bloom DA. THE PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF UPJ OBSTRUCTION. Urologic Clinics of North America. 1998 May;25(2):161–9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0094- 0143(05)70004-5

2. Thomas JC, DeMARCO RT, Donohoe JM, Adams MC, Pope JC, Brock JW. MANAGEMENT OF THE FAILED PYELOPLASTY: A CONTEMPORARY REVIEW. Journal of Urology. 2005 Dec;174(6):2363–6. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1097/01.ju.0000180420.11915.31

3. Carr MC, Casale P. Anomalies and surgery of the ureter in children, vol. 4. Philladelphia: Elsevier. 2011;

4. Castillejos-Molina RA, Rodríguez-Covarrubias F, Feria-Bernal G, Gabilondo-Navarro F. Estenosis ureteropiélica, tratamiento quirúrgico. Gaceta médica de México. 2006;142(3):205–8.

5. Medrano-Urtecho H, Rosas-Nava J, Gonzalez- Cuenca E. Eficacia en la resolución de la estenosis uretero-piélica en pacientes adultos sometidos a pieloplastía laparoscópica. In: LXX Congreso Nacional de Urología Trabajos libres y videos. 2019.

6. Braga LHP, Lorenzo AJ, Bägli DJ, Keays M, Farhat WA, Khoury AE, et al. Risk Factors for Recurrent Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction After Open Pyeloplasty in a Large Pediatric Cohort. Journal of Urology. 2008 Oct;180(4S):1684–8. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016%2Fj.juro.2008.03.086

7. Seo IY, Oh TH, Lee JW. Long-Term Follow-up Results of Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty. Korean J Urol. 2014;55(10):656. doi: https://doi.org/10. 4111%2Fkju.2014.55.10.656

8. Varkarakis IM, Bhayani SB, Allaf ME, Inagaki T, Ong AM, Kavoussi LR, et al. MANAGEMENT OF SECONDARY URETEROPELVIC JUNCTION OBSTRUCTION AFTER FAILED PRIMARY LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY. Journal of Urology. 2004 Jul;172(1):180–2. doi: https://doi. org/10.1097%2F01.ju.0000132142.25717.08

9. Madi R, Roberts WW, Wolf JS. Late Failures After Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty. Urology. 2008 Apr;71(4):677–80. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.070

10. Ambani SN, Yang DY, Wolf JS. Matched comparison of primary versus salvage laparoscopic pyeloplasty. World J Urol. 2017 Jun;35(6):951–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00345-016-1951-y

11. Piaggio LA, Noh PH, González R. Reoperative Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children: Comparison With Open Surgery. Journal of Urology. 2007 May;177(5):1878–82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.01.053

12. Hammady A, Elbadry MS, Rashed E-N, Moussa A, Gamal W, Dawood W, et al. Laparoscopic repyeloplasty after failed open repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a casematched multi-institutional study. Scandinavian Journal of Urology. 2017 Sep 3;51(5):402–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2017.1 347819

13. Chiancone F, Fedelini M, Pucci L, Meccariello C, Fedelini P. Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty: a single surgical team with 38 cases. Int braz j urol. 2017 Jun;43(3):512–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/ s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0198

14. Nishi M, Tsuchida M, Ikeda M, Matsuda D, Iwamura M. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Long-term results: LPP was feasible treatment for secondary UPJO. Int J Urol. 2015 Apr;22(4):368–71. doi: https://doi. org/10.1111/iju.12686

15. Bilen CY, Bayazit Y, Güdeloğlu A, Abat D, Inci K, Doran S. Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Adults: Stented Versus Stentless. Journal of Endourology. 2011 Apr;25(4):645–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0401

16. Tan H-J, Ye Z, Roberts WW, Wolf JS. Failure After Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Prevention and Management. Journal of Endourology. 2011 Sep;25(9):1457–62. doi: https://doi. org/10.1089/end.2010.0647

17. Siddaiah A, Ramaswami K, George D, Das K, Abraham G. Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty. Urol Ann. 2015;7(2):183. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.150489