Castillejos-Molina RA, Rodríguez-Covarrubias F, Feria-Bernal G, Gabilondo-Navarro F

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 205-208
PDF size: 440.69 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Currently there are many therapeutic options for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Open pyeloplasty is the gold standard with a success rate of approximately 90%. We describe our experience in the treatment of UPJO.
Material and methods: We conducted a retrospective and descriptive study among our patients with UPJO surgically treated at the Department of Urology of our institution from 1970 to 2002.
Results: 126 UPJO were diagnosed in 114 patients. The most common symptoms at diagnosis were: pain in 105 patients (92.1), urinary tract infection (UTI) in 37 (32.4%) and hematuria in 24 (21%). The most common associated diseases were urolithiasis in 34 cases, crossing vessels in 10 and horseshoe kidney in 5. 123 procedures were undertaken: 92 (74.8%) dismembered pyeloplasties, 13 (10.7%) Foley Y-V pyeloplasties, in 8 (6.5%) release of crossing vessel, 5 (4%) endopyelotomies, 2 (1.6%) pyeloplasties Scardino-Prince, 2 patients with renal allograft in whom an anastomosis of renal pelvis to native ureter was performed and 1 (0.8%) ureter-ileal anastomosis in a patient with retroperitoneal fibrosis.
The mean follow-up time was of 33.2 months. In 114 (92.7%) patients the procedure was successful. The overall complication rate was of 17.9% of which 2.4% were stricture recurrence associated with crossing vessels.
Conclusion: Open dismembered pyeloplasty is the most common treatment procedure for UPJO at our institution. We report successful results, low morbidity, preservation of renal function and improving symptoms.

REFERENCES

1. Walsh PC, Rehk AB, Darracott-Vaughan E, Wein AS, Kavoussi R, Novick AC, et al. Campbell’s Urology, 8th Edition 2002, Saunders.

2. Sánchez G, Gabilondo-Navarro F, Elías J. Pieloplastia: evaluación radiológica. Bol Col Mex Urol 1987;2:67.

3. Lebowitz RI, Griscom NT. Neonatal Hydronefrosis: 146 cases. Radiol Clin North Am 1977;15:49.

4. McAleer I, Kaplan GW. Renal function before and after pyeloplasty: does it improve?. J Urol 1999;162:1041-1044.

5. O’Reilly PH, Broomann PJC, Mak S, Jones M. The long term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int 2001;87:287-289.

6. Cromie WJ. Complications of pyeloplasty. Urol Clin North Am 1983;10(3):385.

7. Van Cangh PJ, Nesa S. Endopyelotomy: prognostic factors and patient selection. Urol Clin North Am 1998;25:281.

8. Connolly JA, Gleeson MJ, Grainger R, McDermott TE, Butler MR. Is retrograde ureterography indicated in pelviureteric junction obstruccion?. Br J Urol 1993;71:148-151.

9. Jarret TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, Fugita O, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol 2002;167:1253-1256.

10. Schuessler WW, Grune M, Teevanhney LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993;150:1795-1799.

11. Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger M. Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruccion. Eur Urol 2003;44:340-345.

12. Sánchez-Zalabardo D, López-Ferrandis J, Arocena García-Tapia J, Sanz-Pérez G, Diez-Caballero F, Rosell-Costa D, et al. Estenosis de la Unión Pieloureteral: exposición de nuestra experiencia y revisión de la literatura. Actas Urol Esp 2000;24:367-374.

13. Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N, McDougall EM. Single-Center comparison of Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty, Acucise Endopielotomy, and Open Pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2003;17:155-160.

14. Pérez-Santos L, Guzmán-Rodríguez JH, Zepeda-Contreras S, Gabilondo-Navarro F, Rosemblum-Markovits M, et al. Estenosis ureteropilélica. Tratamiento quirúrgico. Rev Mex Urol 1997;57:99.