Minimally invasive open dismembered pyeloplasty technique: Miniature incision, muscle-splitting dissection, and nopelvis reduction in children

doi:10.1016/j.ajur.2018.08.001

Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6 (3): 290-293 doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.08.001

Original Articles

Minimally invasive open dismembered pyeloplasty technique: Miniature incision, muscle-splitting dissection, and nopelvis reduction in children

Farzaneh Sharifiaghdas^a,Mahboubeh Mirzaei^b,*(

),Azar Daneshpajooh^b,Shahin Abbaszadeh^c

^aUrology-Nephrology Research Center, Labbafinejad Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
^bDepartment of Urology, Shahid Bahonar Hospital, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
^cUrology-Nephrology Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract
Related Citation (2)

Download:

HTML

PDF (1495KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract

Objective: To report the outcomes and complications of open dismembered Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty with miniature incision in treating children's ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Methods: Between March 2007 and April 2011, 109 children with a mean age of 2 years and 8 months old with ureteropelvic junction obstruction underwent open dismembered pyeloplasty. Clinical manifestations, radiographic assessments, incision size, surgery time, hospital stay, and complication rate were recorded. All patients had a documented ureteropelvic junction obstruction (having T1/2 more than 20 min in diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid [DTPA] scan) with symptomatic stenosis or decreased kidney function (differential function <40%). Pyeloplasty was done by a retroperitoneal flank approach with miniature incision without pelvis reduction. One surgeon did all the surgeries. Success rate and complications were assessed in a 3-year follow-up. Results: Mean surgery time was 52 min (47-60 min). Incision size was 18-28 mm. Mean hospital stay was 3 days (2-8 days). The surgery was successful in 98.2% of patients with a mean follow-up time of 36 months (success was defined as disappearance of symptoms, if present, with improved ultrasound imaging results or Reno graphic parameters). The complication rate was 7.33%, including urinary leakage, double-J urethral stent dislocation and infection. Conclusion: Open dismembered pyeloplasty is a safe, technically feasible and effective therapy in treatment of children's ureteropelvic junction obstruction. It takes a short time to do, requires a small incision and has few complications and a short recovery period.

Key words： Ureteropelvic junction obstruction Open dismembered pyeloplasty Miniature incision Children

Received: 05 March 2017 Available online: 11 August 2018

Corresponding Authors: Mahboubeh Mirzaei E-mail: mirzaeimahboubeh@yahoo.com

	Service
	E-mail this article
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	Articles by authors
	Farzaneh Sharifiaghdas
	Mahboubeh Mirzaei
	Azar Daneshpajooh
	Shahin Abbaszadeh

TRENDMD:

Cite this article:

Farzaneh Sharifiaghdas,Mahboubeh Mirzaei,Azar Daneshpajooh, et al. Minimally invasive open dismembered pyeloplasty technique: Miniature incision, muscle-splitting dissection, and nopelvis reduction in children[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6(3): 290-293.

URL:

http://www.ajurology.com/EN/10.1016/j.ajur.2018.08.001 OR http://www.ajurology.com/EN/Y2019/V6/I3/290

[1]	Anderson JC, Hynes W . Retrocaval ureter; a case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol 1949; 21:209-14.
[2]	Cantone N, Destro F, Ruggeri G, Lima M. One-trocar-assisted pyeloplasty (OTAP). In: Lima M, Manzoni G, editors. Pediatric urology. Milano: Springer-Verlag; 2015. p. 103-7.
[3]	Monn MF, Bahler CD, Schneider EB, Whittam BM, Misseri R, Rink RC , et al. Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients. Urology 2013; 81:1336-41.
[4]	Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N, McDougall EM . Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2003; 17:155-60.
[5]	Hemal AK, Goel R, Goel A . Cost-effective laparoscopic pyeloplasty: single center experience. Int J Urol 2003; 10:563-8.
[6]	Singh V, Garg M, Sharma P, Sinha RJ, Kumar M . Mini incision open pyeloplastydImprovement in patient outcome. Int Braz J Urol 2015; 41:927-34.
[7]	Wang X, Zhang Z, Peng N, Liu C . Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J X Ray Sci Technol 2013; 21:429-39.
[8]	Gao ZL, Shi L, Yang MS, Wang L, Yang DD, Sun DK , et al. Combination of laparoscopic and open procedure in dismembered pyeloplasty: report of 51 cases. Chin Med J (Engl) 2006; 119:840-4.
[9]	Gao ZL, Wu JT, Yang DD, Shi L, Men CP, Wang L . Retroperitoneoscopic right living donor nephrectomy. Chin Med J (Engl) 2007; 120:1270-3.
[10]	Corbett HJ, Mullassery D . Outcomes of endopyelotomy for pelviureteric junction obstruction in the paediatric population: a systematic review. J Pediatr Urol 2015; 11:328-36.
[11]	Peters CA, Schlussel RN, Retik AB . Pediatric laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1995; 153:1962-5.
[12]	Troxel S, Das S, Helfer E, Nugyen M . Laparoscopy versus dorsal lumbotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair. J Urol 2006; 176:1073-6.
[13]	Sukumar S, Djahangirian O, Sood A, Sammon JD, Varda B, Janosek-Albright K , et al. Minimally invasive vs. open pyeloplasty in children: the differential effect of procedure volume on operative outcomes. Urology 2014; 84:180-4.
[14]	Bonnard A, Fouquet V, Carricaburu E, Aigrain Y, El- Ghoneimi A . Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 2005; 173:1710-3.
[15]	Penn HA, Gatti JM, Hoestje SM , DeMarco RT, Snyder CL, Murphy JP. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children: preliminary report of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 2010; 184:690-5.
[16]	Huang Y, Wu Y, Shan W, Zeng L, Huang L . An updated metaanalysis of laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015; 8:4922.
[17]	Sorensen MD, Delostrinos C, Johnson MH, Grady RW, Lendvay TS . Comparison of the learning curve and outcomes of robotic assisted pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 2011; 185:2517-22.
[18]	Valla JS, Breaud J, Griffin SJ, Sautot-Vial N, Beretta F, Guana R . Retroperitoneoscopic vs. open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. J Pediatr Urol 2009; 5:368-73.
[19]	Moore K, Lorenzo AJ, Turner S, B?gli DJ, Pippi Salle JL, Farhat WA . Prospective cost analysis of laparoscopic vs. open pyeloplasty in children: single centre contemporary evaluation comparing two procedures over a 1-year period. Can Urol Assoc J 2013; 7:94-8.
[20]	Ekin RG, Celik O, Ilbey YO . An up-to-date overview of minimally invasive treatment methods in ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Cent Eur J Urol 2015; 68:245-51.