Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty has become a viable option for the treatment of select patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction with success rates similar to those of open surgery. However, little has been written on the application of this technique for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. We report the largest series of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction managed by laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between March 1994 and March 2001, 36 patients underwent laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. The patients had undergone an average of 1.3 ureteropelvic junction procedures (range 1 to 4) prior to presentation, including cutting balloon retrograde endopyelotomy in 28, antegrade endoscopic endopyelotomy in 7, retrograde endoscopic endopyelotomy in 4, retrograde balloon dilation in 4 and open pyeloplasty in 3. A preoperative diagnosis of recurrent obstruction was confirmed by renal scan in 31 cases, retrograde pyelography in 2 and computerized tomography in 3. Of the 31 patients who underwent spiral computerized tomography angiogram 87% had crossing vessels. Laparoscopic repair comprised dismembered pyeloplasty in 31 cases, Fengerplasty in 3 and flap repair in 2. Postoperative renal scan or excretory urography objective followup was available for all patients at a mean of 10 months (range 3 to 40). Postoperative subjective patient well-being was assessed using an analog pain scale at a mean followup of 21.8 months (range 3 to 85).
RESULTS: Average operative time was 6.2 hours (range 2.7 to 10). Average hospital stay was 2.9 days (range 1 to 7). One intraoperative complication occurred, that is bleeding necessitating conversion to an open procedure. Postoperative complications occurred in 8 cases, including anastomotic leakage in 4, and urinary tract infection, pneumonia, atelectasis, fever, bilateral upper extremity weakness and stone formation 2 months postoperatively in 1 each. On excretory urography, furosemide renal scan or the Whitaker test 32 of 36 patients (89%) had a widely patent ureteropelvic junction. Two patients (5.5%) had equivocal radiographic studies but were asymptomatic. In 2 patients the ureteropelvic junction was obstructed by renal scan. One patient had an indwelling stent for renal function deterioration and 1 was asymptomatic. Hence, 34 of the 36 patients (94%) had a reasonable objective response. Overall a 50% or greater decrease in pain was seen in 32 of 36 patients (89%). In the 4 patients with a less than 50% decrease in pain objective renal scans showed an open ureteropelvic junction. As such, the overall success rate of a greater than 50% decrease in pain, a patent ureteropelvic junction and stable or improved function of the affected renal unit was 83% (30 of 36 patients).
CONCLUSIONS: For secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction, laparoscopic pyeloplasty can be performed safely with a success rate comparable to that of standard open pyeloplasty. The patient benefits of laparoscopic ureteropelvic junction repair of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction are similar to the benefits of laparoscopic repair of primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.