Fulltext

Dismembered and non-dismembered retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children

Subotic, Svetozar ; Weiss, Hagen ; Wyler, Stephen ; Rentsch, Cyrill ; Rassweiler, Jens ; Bachmann, Alexander ; Teber, Dogu

In: World Journal of Urology, 2013, vol. 31, no. 3, p. 689-695

Aggiungi alla tua lista
    Titre
    • Dismembered and non-dismembered retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children
    Auteur
    • Subotic, Svetozar. Department of Urology, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstr. 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland
    • Weiss, Hagen. Department of Urology, SLK Kliniken Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    • Wyler, Stephen. Department of Urology, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstr. 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland
    • Rentsch, Cyrill. Department of Urology, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstr. 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland
    • Rassweiler, Jens. Department of Urology, SLK Kliniken Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    • Bachmann, Alexander. Department of Urology, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstr. 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland
    • Teber, Dogu. Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
    Type de document
    • Postprint
    Identifiant OAI-PMH
    • oai:doc.rero.ch:318115
    Summary
    Purpose: Open dismembered pyeloplasty according to Anderson-Hynes (AHP) is the gold standard treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. However, during the last decade, the management has been revolutionized with introduction of laparoscopy and endourology yielding comparable results and less morbid outcomes. Methods: Between 1997 and 2010, dismembered and non-dismembered retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty was performed in 41 children with a median age of 130month (range 5-192). 20 children underwent a dismembered pyeloplasty (Anderson-Hynes) and 21 children were operated by a non-dismembered pyeloplasty (Y-V-Plasty). Results: The mean operation time was 120min (range 52-257). Intraoperative findings revealed in 29 cases a significant crossing vessel. Based on a furosemide nephrogram and subjective complaints, the success rate was 88% with a median follow-up of 69month (range 14-142). The 5 failures (2 Y-V-Plasty, 3 AHP) have been treated by open AHP (n=2), Laser endopyelotomy (n=2) and Lap-AHP (n=1) without further problems. Conclusion: With increasing improvement of the suture techniques, the laparoscopic pyeloplasty represents in experienced hands an alternative method with comparable success rates to the open technique. In our opinion, retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty is technically possible and feasible even in infants. We found in our series no statistically significant difference between dismembered and non-dismembered pyeloplasty