Laparoscopic treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess retrospectively the subjective and objective outcomes achieved after laparoscopic treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction at our institutions.

METHODS

Between August 1999 and July 2001, 19 patients (11 women and 8 men), with a mean age of 31.2 years (range 17 to 67), underwent laparoscopic treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Of these, 17 patients were eligible for postoperative analysis. Nine of these patients had a history of prior surgical intervention on the affected side. The patients were subjectively assessed by an analog pain scale performed before and at least 6 months after surgery. Preoperatively, patients had a diuretic renal scan to confirm the presence of obstruction. Helical computed tomography was also performed preoperatively to assess for the presence of crossing vessels. The renal scan was repeated at least 12 weeks after surgery to document the relief of obstruction objectively.

RESULTS

Helical computed tomography correctly predicted the presence of crossing vessels in 12 patients (63%). The Anderson-Hynes and Fenger pyeloplasty techniques were performed in 16 and 2 patients, respectively. In 1 patient, a small crossing vein over the ureteropelvic junction was identified and divided without complications. The average operative time was 240 minutes (range 128 to 470). The blood loss was minimal, and no open conversions were required. The mean hospital stay was 2.9 days (range 2 to 7). Two postoperative complications occurred (11.7%). The average subjective follow-up was 14.4 months (range 6 to 27), and the average objective follow-up was 7.8 months (range 3 to 12). Of 17 assessable patients, 16 (94%) had subjective and objective success (postoperative improvement in analog pain score and half-life of radiotracer washout). The average split renal function improved from 34.1% to 38.5% (P <0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of our data, laparoscopic pyeloplasty has a similar success rate compared with the traditional open approach and better results than other minimally invasive techniques. Longer follow-up and further experience are needed to validate these data.