Impact of hydronephrosis and renal function on treatment outcome: antegrade versus retrograde endopyelotomy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare, in a single-surgeon, single-institution study, the efficacy of antegrade and retrograde endopyelotomy in terms of success rate and morbidity and to identify which risk factors affect treatment outcomes.
METHODS: The results were retrospectively reviewed for 88 patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction treated with endopyelotomy. Antegrade endopyelotomy was performed with a hook knife, scissors, or cutting balloon device. Retrograde endopyelotomy was performed with a cutting balloon device. Objective results were based on intravenous urogram and/or diuretic nuclear renal scan findings, and subjective results were based on direct patient query and questionnaire.
RESULTS: Ninety-three endopyelotomy procedures, 64 antegrade and 29 retrograde, were performed. The mean follow-up was 37.0 months (range 5 to 76). The overall success rates between antegrade and retrograde endopyelotomy (81.3% versus 75.9%) were not statistically different (P = 0.553). Patients with massive hydronephrosis and poor initial renal function were less likely to have successful endopyelotomy. Antegrade endopyelotomy, however, was more successful than retrograde endopyelotomy in patients with massive hydronephrosis (66.7% versus 20.0%; P = 0.046). The average operative time for antegrade and retrograde endopyelotomy was 93.9 and 32.7 minutes (P <0.001), respectively. The average length of hospital stay after antegrade and retrograde endopyelotomy was 3.20 and 0.14 nights (P <0.001), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Both antegrade and retrograde endopyelotomy are effective treatments for ureteropelvic junction obstruction associated with minimal morbidity. Antegrade endopyelotomy appears to be more successful in patients with high-grade hydronephrosis. Retrograde endopyelotomy results in a shorter hospital stay, a shorter operative time, and less postoperative pain.