31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Postoperative evaluation of hydronephrosis due to the way of pyeloplasy (dismembered / non-dismembered)

      editorial

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In recent years, we have seen rapid development of minimally invasive procedures in urologic oncology, but also in corrective surgery of congenital defects, including ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). After a period of testing the endoscopic treatment of UPJO, currently the majority of patients undergo laparoscopic or robotic surgery. Recently, single port laparoscopy (LESS) has become an optional technique in the urological armamentarium. Laparoscopic treatment of UPJO in adults has been established as the “gold standard” means of curing this quite common disease. Nowadays it draws much attention as it is one of the very few urological laparoscopic operations that can be done relatively easily by a laparoscopist with limited experience, and as such, resembles the case of cholecystectomy for general surgeons [1, 2]. Abundant literature offers much data about very good postoperative functional results of laparascopy: equal to open surgery and with the known advantage of minimal invasiveness. In contrast, many authors continue to commission research of functional supervision of patients after UPJO repair, since the disappearance of hydronephrosis observed in the ultrasound over a longer period of time may also result from the deterioration of renal function. However, it is surprising that the authors very seldomly give precise details about how long after the procedure the final outcome was evaluated and which diagnostic tools should be used. In the current issue of CEJU, Isoyama and co-operators present a very interesting paper inspired by data coming from paediatric surgeons that the hydronephrosis after UPJO repair may subside very gradually, probably as the elastic properties of the renal pelvis may differ individually. According to the authors, this has two practical consequences. Firstly, provided that there are no remaining symptoms, the judgement of the result of surgery should be postponed, as there is still time for improvement, even as long as two years after the operation. Secondly, serial ultrasound may be a valuable alternative to more invasive diagnostic tests, such as intravenous pyelography (IVP) or diuretic renogram, during the follow-up. It is worth noting that, in our opinion, the evaluation of the hydronephrosis stage changes should be sought for each patient individually, as a step in the laparoscopic partial resection of the enlarged renal pelvis. In some cases immediately after surgery, with radical removal of the excess renal pelvis, the hydronephrosis is no longer observed [3]. The ultrasound evaluation of the functional effect of the surgery, by reducing the hydronephrosis, seems to be useful in the case of non-dismembered pyeloplasy, since the treatment is limited only to the longitudinal cut of UPJO and transverse suture without resection of the stenosed part of the renal pelvis [4]. The study is small as it is based on the analysis of only 16 patients, but may give urologists some scientific support for consultation of patients after UPJO surgery, who do not have symptoms, but are uncertain about the outcome, especially if there is some persistent hydronephrosis. From the Isoyama paper, we may conclude that the resolution of hydronephrosis may take even two years and may be followed very well by measurements from subsequent ultrasound evaluations, which are better that USG tests done separately. It can spare the patient unnecessary tests or maybe sometimes even prevent an unnecessary re-do operation. Moreover, subsequent ultrasound measurements of the size of the renal pelvis in the improvement of kidney function, after dismembered pyeloplasty of UPJO, in our opinion, provide an interesting noninvasive diagnostic option, but should be carried out individually, taking into account the extent of renal pelvis resection during surgery for each patient. If there are still any doubt as to the effect of the treatment, diuretic renogram and IVP remain the standard diagnostic procedures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty--the method of choice in the presence of an enlarged renal pelvis and crossing vessels.

          I. TURK (2002)
          Herein we report our experience of 49 consecutive pyeloplasties that were all laparoscopically performed with an intracorporeally sutured anastomosis. We describe the operative technique, complications and outcomes during a follow-up period of 1-53 months (mean 23.2 months). Forty-nine patients (28 women and 21 men) with a mean age of 34 years (range 6-65 years) underwent a laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty because of primary ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction with hydronephrosis in each case. The preoperative evaluation included an evaluation for pain, an excretory urography (IVP), renal scan and sometimes CT angiography to evaluate for crossing vessels. Follow-up studies included an IVP, renal scan and renal ultrasound 4 weeks postoperatively and every 3 months thereafter. Success was considered as improvement of the pain score and IVP (less hydronephrosis, visible UPJ and/or normalization of drainage) or absence of an obstructive pattern during the washout phase of a renal scan. There was no conversion to open surgery. The mean operative time was 165 min (range 90-240 min). Blood loss was negligible. Crossing vessels were noted in 57.1% of the patients (28/49). Postoperative hospital stay was 3.7 days (range 3-6 days). One patient had a leakage of the anastomosis on postoperative day 1 and needed to undergo laparoscopic repair. The mean follow-up is 23.2 months (range 1-53 months). There was one single late failure. This patient later underwent an open revision of the laparoscopic pyeloplasty. In all other patients (48/49), the obstruction was resolved or significantly improved. The long-term success rate is 97.7%. The results of dismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasties compare favorably with those achieved by open pyeloplasties with less perioperative morbidity and discomfort. We do believe that laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty with an intracorporeal anastomosis is the method of choice in the treatment of the UPJ obstruction in the presence of an enlarged renal pelvis and crossing vessels.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

            Laparoscopic pyeloplasty must be compared with open surgery in terms of efficacy and with endopyelotomy in terms of morbidity. All of the series published so far show that the results of laparoscopic pyeloplasty equal those of open surgery. Laparoscopy is associated with a lower morbidity; therefore, it is preferable to open surgery. The morbidity of endopyelotomy is also low, at least when it is performed in a retrograde fashion. The results of endopyelotomy are poor if UPJ obstruction is caused by crossing vessels. In addition, endopyelotomy in this clinical setting carries the risk of hemorrhage. Most adults with symptomatic UPJ obstruction present with crossing vessels at the UPJ. These patients benefit from laparoscopy, and endopyelotomy should be reserved for patients with true intrinsic stenoses. For this reason, preoperative investigation using contemporary imaging techniques is of crucial importance to be able to select the most appropriate surgical method for a given patient. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty is technically feasible but difficult. The authors prefer nondismembered techniques that yield equally good results in selected patients. Nondismembered pyeloplasty as described by Fenger is easy to perform and well suited for laparoscopy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction

              Introduction Laparoscopic pyeloplasty was first described by Schuessler. During the last decade, this technique has been developed in order to achieve the same results as open surgery, with lower rates of morbidity and complications. In this study we review our experience using laparoscopic pyeloplasty as the gold standard for the treatment of the ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Material and methods We performed a retrospective review of 62 laparoscopic pyeloplasties carried out at our center. In the last 2 years we used 3 mm and 5 mm ports in order to achieve better cosmetics results. Demographic data is described and the functionality of the affected kidney and surgical data, among others were analyzed statistically. In the case of bilateral statistical tests were considered significant as those with p values <0.05. Results The most frequent reason for consultation was ureteral pain. Patients mean age was 40 years and 94% of them had preoperative renogram showing a full or partial obstructive pattern. The right side was affected in 61% of cases and the left in the remaining 39%. The presence of stones was observed in 12 patients and crossing vessels in 58% of cases. The average stay was 3.72 days. Post–surgery complications were observed in two patients. The operative time was 178 minutes. Mean follow–up was 45 months and a success was achieved in 91%. Conclusions The transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty has become the gold standard for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction stenosis in our center because of high success rate, shorter postoperative stay, and low intra and postoperative complications.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cent European J Urol
                Cent European J Urol
                CEJU
                Central European Journal of Urology
                Polish Urological Association
                2080-4806
                2080-4873
                17 April 2014
                2014
                : 67
                : 1
                : 106-107
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Urology, Medical University, Gdansk, Poland
                [2 ]Department of Urology, Rydygier Memorial Hospital, Cracow, Poland
                [3 ]Department of Pathophysiology, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Cracow, Poland
                Author notes
                Correspondence Tomasz Drewniak, M.D., P.hD., FEBU. tomdrew@ 123456vp.pl
                Article
                E68
                10.5173/ceju.2014.01.art25
                4074731
                fc62be3b-fc52-4855-b272-2e87222ffb7b
                Copyright by Polish Urological Association

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Trauma and Reconstructive Urology

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content320

                Most referenced authors50