BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction can be addressed surgically by an open, laparoscopic, endoscopic, or fluoroscopic procedure. Our objective was to establish what surgical alternatives are currently offered by urologists in Minnesota. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 174 members of the Minnesota Urological Society. Practice settings were characterized as rural, urban, or metropolitan on the basis of the ZIP-code classifications of the Minnesota Ambulance Association and state geographic legislation. Respondents were asked to select initial treatment options for an adult patient with flank pain, decreased renal function, and hydronephrosis secondary to UPJ obstruction. RESULTS: Whereas 60% of the respondents would offer open pyeloplasty, only 12% would offer it as the only treatment option. The two most common minimally invasive therapies offered were the Acucise balloon (48%) and percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy (48%). Rural urologists were more likely to offer Acucise balloon incision (71%) than were urban (28%; P=0.045) or metropolitan (55%; P=0.412) urologists. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of urologists still offer open pyeloplasty as first-line therapy for UPJ obstruction. Further emphasis should be placed on increasing the availability of endoscopic and laparoscopic procedures.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction can be addressed surgically by an open, laparoscopic, endoscopic, or fluoroscopic procedure. Our objective was to establish what surgical alternatives are currently offered by urologists in Minnesota. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 174 members of the Minnesota Urological Society. Practice settings were characterized as rural, urban, or metropolitan on the basis of the ZIP-code classifications of the Minnesota Ambulance Association and state geographic legislation. Respondents were asked to select initial treatment options for an adult patient with flank pain, decreased renal function, and hydronephrosis secondary to UPJ obstruction. RESULTS: Whereas 60% of the respondents would offer open pyeloplasty, only 12% would offer it as the only treatment option. The two most common minimally invasive therapies offered were the Acucise balloon (48%) and percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy (48%). Rural urologists were more likely to offer Acucise balloon incision (71%) than were urban (28%; P=0.045) or metropolitan (55%; P=0.412) urologists. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of urologists still offer open pyeloplasty as first-line therapy for UPJ obstruction. Further emphasis should be placed on increasing the availability of endoscopic and laparoscopic procedures.