Literature DB >> 16457941

Antegrade versus retrograde endopyelotomy for pelvi-ureteric junction (PUJ) obstruction.

Andrea Minervini1, Kim Davenport, Francis X Keeley, Anthony G Timoney.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare complication and success rates of antegrade and retrograde endopyelotomy performed over 10 years and to define possible risk factors associated with treatment failure.
METHODS: From 1994 to 2004, 61 patients underwent a total of 68 endoscopic treatments: 19 antegrade and 49 retrograde endopyelotomy procedures. Antegrade endopyelotomy was always performed using diathermy. In the first 18 procedures retrograde endopyelotomy was performed using diathermy. In the most recent 30 procedures the incision was made using holmium laser. Endoluminal ultrasound was used in 78% of retrograde endopyelotomy and in 5% of antegrade endopyelotomy.
RESULTS: The retrograde endopyelotomy patients demonstrated significantly lower complication rates (12.5% vs. 42%) and shorter hospital stay (1.5 vs. 7 days) than the antegrade endopyelotomy patients. The mean follow up of the patients who remained free from disease recurrence during the study period was 46 and 24 months for the antegrade and retrograde endopyelotomy group, respectively. The overall success rate (mean time to failure) of antegrade and retrograde endopyelotomy was 56% (31 months) and 70% (17 months), respectively. There was no statistically significant increase in the overall success rate of retrograde endopyelotomy using endoluminal ultrasound per se. Stratifying retrograde endopyelotomy by the type of energy used for the incision, the overall success rate (mean time to failure) was 80% (10 months) and 53% (21 months) for Holmium laser and diathermy, respectively (p = 0.0626).
CONCLUSIONS: The overall success of antegrade and retrograde endopyelotomy in this series appears to be largely a factor of lead-time bias and is similar enough to recommend retrograde endopyelotomy with holmium laser on the basis of its relative safety and shorter hospital stay.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16457941     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.11.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  11 in total

Review 1.  Endopyelotomy in the age of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Daniel Yong; David M Albala
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Antegrade percutaneous endopyelotomy.

Authors:  Raymond Ko; Mordechai Duvdevani; John D Denstedt
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Comparison of surgical approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction: endopyeloplasty versus endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Robert J Stein; Inderbir S Gill; Mihir M Desai
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Endopyelotomy still has an important role in the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Authors:  Dinesh Samarasekera; Ben H Chew
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the standard of care for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Authors:  Anil Kapoor; Christopher B Allard
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 6.  Is it always necessary to treat a ureteropelvic junction syndrome?

Authors:  Paul J Van Cangh
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 7.  Retrograde endopyelotomy: a comparison between laser and Acucise balloon cutting catheter.

Authors:  Ahmed R el-Nahas
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.092

8.  Minimal invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in low volume pelvis: A comparative study of endopyelotomy and laparoscopic nondismembered pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Pratipal Singh; Paresh Jain; Anand Dharaskar; Anil Mandhani; Deepak Dubey; Rakesh Kapoor; Anant Kumar; Aneesh Srivastava
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2009-01

9.  Comparison of endopyelotomy and laparoscopic pyeloplasty for poorly functioning kidneys with ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Authors:  Pratipal Singh; Rakesh Kapoor; Amit Suri; Kamal Jeet Singh; Anil Mandhani; Deepak Dubey; Aneesh Srivastava; Anant Kumar
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2007-01

10.  Transperitoneal mini-laparoscopic pyeloplasty and concomitant ureteroscopy-assisted pyelolithotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction complicated by renal caliceal stones.

Authors:  Zhi Chen; Peng Zhou; Zhong-Qing Yang; Yang Li; Yan-Cheng Luo; Yao He; Nan-Nan Li; Chao-Qun Xie; Chen Lai; Xiao-Long Fang; Xiang Chen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-09       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.