Literature DB >> 24035031

Failed pyeloplasty in children: revisiting the unknown.

Rodrigo L P Romao1, Martin A Koyle, Joao L Pippi Salle, Abdulhakim Alotay, Victor H Figueroa, Armando J Lorenzo, Darius J Bagli, Walid A Farhat.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To perform a critical analysis of the management of the pediatric failed pyeloplasty in a large tertiary center. The ideal approach to this rare entity is not well established.
METHODS: Retrospective record review of children undergoing pyeloplasty from 2000 to 2010. All cases that required any type of reintervention, excluding stent removal, were analyzed. Data collected included: demographics, indication for and modality of the initial surgery, presence of crossing vessels, mode of diagnosis of failure, and type(s) of reintervention with the correspondent success rate(s).
RESULTS: Overall, pyeloplasty failure rate was 27 per 455 patients (5.9%). Age, initial indication for pyeloplasty, and modality of surgery (open vs laparoscopic) yielded similar failure rates. Indications for reintervention were as follows: worsening asymptomatic hydronephrosis 16 of 27 (59%), pain 7 of 27 (26%), urosepsis 2 of 27 (7.5%), and others 2 of 27 (7.5%). Eight of 27 (30%) improved with 1, 14 of 27 (52%) had 2, and 5 of 27 (18%) required 3 reinterventions, respectively. Mean interval between the first operation and subsequent interventions was 19.3, 24.9, and 27 months for the first, second, and third reinterventions, respectively. Modalities of reintervention with respective success rates were as follows: double J stent insertion 16% (6%), endopyelotomy 18% (50%), redo pyeloplasty 12% (92%), and ureterocalicostomy 4% (100%). Only 1 patient (7%) was documented to have a missed crossing vessel. All patients were stable and doing well after a mean follow-up of 56 months after the first operation.
CONCLUSION: According to this series, more invasive and definitive techniques, such as redo pyeloplasty and ureterocalicostomy, are more successful than minimally invasive ones to treat failed pyeloplasty and should probably be offered sooner rather than later.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24035031     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.049

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  10 in total

1.  Paediatric urology: invasive management needed for failed pyeloplasty?

Authors:  Melanie Clyne
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  National Trends in Secondary Procedures Following Pediatric Pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Geolani W Dy; Ryan S Hsi; Sarah K Holt; Thomas S Lendvay; John L Gore; Jonathan D Harper
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-02-28       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Delayed redo pyeloplasty fails to recover lost renal function after failed pyeloplasty: early sonographic changes that correlate with a loss of differential renal function.

Authors:  Doo Yong Chung; Chang Hee Hong; Young Jae Im; Yong Seung Lee; Sang Woon Kim; Sang Won Han
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2015-01-30

Review 4.  Single-Site Laparoscopy and Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Urology.

Authors:  Diana K Bowen; Jason P Van Batavia; Arun K Srinivasan
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Has the robot caught up? National trends in utilization, perioperative outcomes, and cost for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty in the United States from 2003 to 2015.

Authors:  Briony K Varda; Ye Wang; Benjamin I Chung; Richard S Lee; Michael P Kurtz; Caleb P Nelson; Steven L Chang
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 1.830

6.  Laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in a 10-year-old female patient: a case report.

Authors:  Yoko Nishimura; Kimihiko Moriya; Michiko Nakamura; Takeya Kitta; Yukiko Kanno; Hiroki Chiba; Masafumi Kon; Nobuo Shinohara
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2017-07-06

7.  Comparative, Prospective, Case-Control Study of Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Long-term Results.

Authors:  Lisandro A Piaggio; Juan P Corbetta; Santiago Weller; Ricardo Augusto Dingevan; Víctor Duran; Javier Ruiz; Juan C Lopez
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 3.418

8.  Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Propensity score matched analyses of a high-volume center.

Authors:  Jiayi Li; Yang Yang; Zonghan Li; Songqiao Fan; Xinyu Wang; Zhenzhen Yang; Pei Liu; Hongcheng Song; Weiping Zhang
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2022-09-08       Impact factor: 3.569

Review 9.  Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty among children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hamdan Hammad Alhazmi
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2018 Oct-Dec

10.  Learning curve or experience-related outcome: what really matters in paediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Wojciech Panek; Jakub Szmer; Caroline F Kuijper; Rafal Chrzan
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 1.195

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.