AIM: To retrospectively evaluate the ef fi cacy of Acucise endopyelotomy in a series of patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). METHODS: Twenty-four patients with a symptomatic primary UPJO underwent Acucise endopyelotomy. Patients with high-grade hydronephrosis and/or poor renal function were excluded. Patients were followed by ultrasound imaging, intravenous urography, diuretic renography, and clinical review. RESULTS: The overall success rate was 58% (14/24 patients), with a median follow up of 32 months. Of the ten patients in whom Acucise endopyelotomy failed, seven underwent open pyeloplasty, one required nephrectomy, and two received a permanent ureteral stent. A poor outcome was noted in patients without perioperative extravasation. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience with Acucise endopyelotomy indicates that the success rate is lower than initially reported. Larger studies are needed to clarify the role of Acucise endopyelotomy in comparison with other techniques.
AIM: To retrospectively evaluate the ef fi cacy of Acucise endopyelotomy in a series of patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). METHODS: Twenty-four patients with a symptomatic primary UPJO underwent Acucise endopyelotomy. Patients with high-grade hydronephrosis and/or poor renal function were excluded. Patients were followed by ultrasound imaging, intravenous urography, diuretic renography, and clinical review. RESULTS: The overall success rate was 58% (14/24 patients), with a median follow up of 32 months. Of the ten patients in whom Acucise endopyelotomy failed, seven underwent open pyeloplasty, one required nephrectomy, and two received a permanent ureteral stent. A poor outcome was noted in patients without perioperative extravasation. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience with Acucise endopyelotomy indicates that the success rate is lower than initially reported. Larger studies are needed to clarify the role of Acucise endopyelotomy in comparison with other techniques.