Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction – How should success be determined?

Submitted: February 26, 2024
Accepted: March 28, 2024
Published: May 17, 2024
Abstract Views: 270
PDF: 21
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Background: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is characterised by stenosis of the ureteral lumen at the level of the renal pelvis and proximal ureter. At Haukeland University Hospital, robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RLP) for UPJO has been performed since 2014. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of the treatment and consider what determines treatment success.
Materials and methods: Retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients undergoing RLP between 2014-2022. Outcomes of interest included symptom relief, complication rates and renographic findings at follow-up. Treatment success was defined in terms of symptom improvement and/or improvement as well as relief of obstruction on renography.
Results: In total, 95 RLPs were performed in 54 women and 41 men, with a mean age of 40 years (IQR: 21-58). Flank pain was the most frequent presenting complaint (n = 81, 85%) followed by infection (n = 33, 35%). More than one indication for surgery was present in 1/3 of the patients. Urodynamic relevant obstruction on renography was found in 62 patients (65%) preoperatively. Mean operative time was 123 minutes (range 60-270). Two patients experienced minor intraoperative complications. At three months follow-up, 91% of patients had symptom relief, and no obstruction on renography was recorded in 64%. There was no significant association between improvement in symptoms and renography findings at follow-up, p = 1.
Conclusions: RLP can deliver a high success rate in terms of symptom relief and few complications. There was no association between renography findings and symptom relief at follow-up. Success after surgery should be determined by symptom relief rather than renography findings.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Al-Salem AH. Pelviureteric Junction Obstruction. Atlas of Pediatric Surgery: Principles and Treatment. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020; p. 819-27.
Wein A KL, et al. Campbell-Walsh Urology 10th edition. Elsevier Saunders. 2012; p. 1122-47.
Koff SA MK. Anomalies of the kidney. In: Gillenwater JY, Grayhack JT, Howards SS, editors. Adult and Pediatric Urology. Philadelphia, Unites States: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2001; p. 2129.
Hemal AM, M, editor. Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery: Springer. 2011.
Piepsz A. The predictive value of the renogram. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009; 36:1661-4.
Tanagho EM, JW Smith’s General Urology. 17 ed: McGraw-Hill Medical; 17th edition. 2007; p.768.
Shah KK, Louie M, Thaly RK, Patel VR. Robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a review of the current status. Int J Med Robot. 2007; 3:35-40.
Wood TC, Raison N, El-Hage O, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a single-centre experience. Surg Endosc. 2018; 32:4590-6.
Zhang P, Shi T, Fam X, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty as management for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a comparison study with primary pyeloplasty. Transl Androl Urol. 2020; 9:1278-85.
Gupta NP, Nayyar R, Hemal AK, et al. Outcome analysis of robotic pyeloplasty: a large single-centre experience. BJU Int. 2010; 105:980-3.
Bird VG, Leveillee RJ, Eldefrawy A, et al. Comparison of robotassisted versus conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single-center study. Urology. 2011; 77:730-4.
Cai PY, Lee RS. Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction/ Hydronephrosis. Urol Clin North Am. 2023; 50:361-9.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240:205-13.
Etafy M, Pick D, Said S, et al. Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience. J Urol. 2011; 185:2196 200.
Schwentner C, Pelzer A, Neururer R, et al. Robotic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Int. 2007; 100:880-5.
Thom MR, Haseebuddin M, Roytman TM, et al. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: outcomes for primary and secondary repairs, a single institution experience. Int Braz J Urol. 2012; 38:77-83.
Braga LH, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur Urol. 2009; 56:848-57.
Carmona O, Dotan ZA, Haifler M, et al. Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty in Adults-A Single-Center Experience. J Pers Med. 2022; 12.
Patel V. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology. 2005; 66:45-9.
Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, Palese MA, Berger AD, Thomas R, et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2008; 180:1391-6.
Sivaraman A, Leveillee RJ, Patel MB, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology. 2012; 79:351-5.

How to Cite

Lien, M., Æsøy, M. S., Hjelle, K., Almås, B., Juliebø-Jones, P., & Ulvik, Øyvind. (2024). Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction – How should success be determined?. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 96(2). https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12431