Laparoscopic repyeloplasty after failed open repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a case-matched multi-institutional study

Robotic ureteral reconstruction for recurrent strictures after prior failed management

Objectives

To describe our multi-institutional experience with robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) in patients who failed prior endoscopic and/or surgical management.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed our Collaborative of Reconstructive Robotic Ureteral Surgery (CORRUS) database for all consecutive patients who underwent RUR between 05/2012 and 01/2020 for a recurrent ureteral stricture after having undergone prior failed endoscopic and/or surgical repair. Post-operatively, patients were assessed for surgical success, defined as the absence of flank pain and obstruction on imaging.

Results

Overall, 105 patients met inclusion criteria. Median stricture length was 2 (IQR 1-3) centimetres. Strictures were located at the ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) (41.0%), proximal (14.3%), middle (9.5%) or distal (35.2%) ureter. There were nine (8.6%) radiation-induced strictures. Prior failed management included endoscopic intervention (49.5%), surgical repair (25.7%) or both (24.8%). For repair of UPJ and proximal strictures, ureteroureterostomy (3.4%), ureterocalicostomy (5.2%), pyeloplasty (53.5%) or buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (37.9%) was utilized; for repair of middle strictures, ureteroureterostomy (20.0%) or buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (80.0%) was utilized; for repair of distal strictures, ureteroureterostomy (8.1%), side-to-side reimplant (18.9%), end-to-end reimplant (70.3%) or appendiceal bypass (2.7%) was utilized. Major (Clavien >2) post-operative complications occurred in two (1.9%) patients. At a median follow-up of 15.1 (IQR 5.0-30.4) months, 94 (89.5%) cases were surgically successful.

Conclusions

RUR may be performed with good intermediate-term outcomes for patients with recurrent strictures after prior failed endoscopic and/or surgical management.

Analysis of the efficacy and risk factors of surgical treatment of recurrent UPJO in adults

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy of secondary pyeloplasty and balloon dilation and to analyze the risk factors for secondary surgical failure in patients with recurrent uretero-pelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 65 patients with recurrent UPJO who underwent secondary surgery between September 2011 and March 2019, of whom 33 had complete baseline data and follow-up data. General clinical information, perioperative data, and follow-up results were collected from patients. Risk factors for surgical failure in patients with recurrent UPJO were analyzed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

The failure rates of secondary pyeloplasty and balloon dilation in secondary surgery were 16.7% and 33.3%, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that ureteral stenosis length and operative time were associated with secondary pyeloplasty and balloon dilatation failure (p < 0.05), and ureteral stenosis length was an independent risk factor for secondary pyeloplasty failure (OR = 0.074, 95% CI: 0.006-0.864, p = 0.038). In the balloon dilation group, treatment failure rates were significantly lower in patients with stenotic segment lengths less than 1 ± 0.32 cm than in patients with stenotic segment lengths greater than 1 ± 0.32 cm (p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

The secondary pyeloplasty may provide better benefit. Ureteral stricture length is an independent risk factor for failure of secondary pyeloplasty and a potential risk factor for balloon dilatation. Operation time is a potential risk factor for pyeloplasty and balloon dilatation.

Comparison of Secondary and Primary Minimally Invasive Pyeloplasty in the Treatment of Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: To compare the outcomes of secondary minimally invasive pyeloplasty (MIP) versus primary MIP for the patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Materials and Methods: We searched all the literature of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library comparing secondary MIP and primary MIP and performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Results: We included 15 studies involving 1637 patients with 1371 in the primary MIP group and 266 in the secondary MIP group. There were no significant differences in length of hospital stays, and the risk of hematuria, urinary tract infection, intestinal obstruction, stent complications, and overall complications (P > .05). Comparing with the secondary MIP group, the primary MIP group has shorter operative time (mean difference [MD] = -36.91 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -50.21 to -23.62, P < .00001), less estimated blood loss (MD = -16.70 mL, 95% CI: -31.60 to -1.80, P = .03), lower risk of urinary leakage and injury of blood vessel (relative risk [RR] = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.11-0.93, P = .04) (RR = 0.10, 95% CI: 0.02-0.61, P = .01), and higher success rate (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02-1.11, P = .003). The robot-assisted pyeloplasty is superior to the laparoscopic pyeloplasty in controlling the amount of blood loss in the secondary operation. Conclusions: Considering the poorer outcomes of secondary surgery, we believe that special attention should be paid to not missing crossing vessels, and it would be more prudent to perform a more definitive procedure with pyeloplasty instead of endopyelotomy for primary UPJO.

Modified Laparoscopic and Robotic Flap Pyeloplasty for Recurrent Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction with a Long Proximal Ureteral Stricture: The "Wishbone" Anastomosis and the "Ureteral Plate" Technique

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to present our modified flap pyeloplasty techniques for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) with a long proximal ureteral stricture and compare outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2018 and January 2020, 21 patients underwent modified laparoscopic or robotic flap pyeloplasty for recurrent UPJO with a long proximal ureteral stricture. Our surgical modifications included the "wishbone" anastomosis and "ureteral plate" technique. Demographic, perioperative, and follow-up data were recorded and compared retrospectively between the groups. Success was defined as subjective pain alleviation and hydronephrosis improvement.

RESULTS

Thirteen modified laparoscopic flap pyeloplasty (mLFP) and 8 modified robotic flap pyeloplasty (mRFP) were performed successfully without conversion. mRFP tended to have shorter overall operative time (142.4 vs. 179.1 min, p = 0.122) and anastomosis time (43.1 vs. 61.0 min, p = 0.093) than mLFP. No difference was found in estimated blood loss (p = 0.723) and pararenal draining time (p = 0.175) between the groups. The mean postoperative hospital stay of mRFP was significantly shorter than that of mLFP (5.0 vs. 8.2 days, p = 0.015). No major complications occurred. During the mean follow-up of 17.9 months, the overall success rate was 90.5%, and there was no significant difference between 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified flap pyeloplasty could be considered a practical and effective treatment option with a high success rate for recurrent UPJO with a long proximal ureteral stricture, and the robotic procedures showed advantages of higher efficiency and faster recovery.

[Advance in re-do pyeloplasty for the management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after surgery]

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is characterized by decreased flow of urine down the ureter and increased fluid pressure inside the kidney. Open pyeloplasty had been regarded as the standard management of UPJO for a long time. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty reports high success rates, for both retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches, which are comparable to those of open pyeloplasty. However, open and laparoscopic pyeloplasty have yielded disappointing failure rates of 2.5%-10%. The main causes for recurrent UPJO are severe peripelvic and periureteric fibrosis due to urinary extravasation, ureteral ischemia, and inadequate hemostasis. In addition, failing to diagnose lower pole crossing vessels before or during the primary procedure is also responsible for recurrent UPJO. In addition, poor preoperative split renal function, hydronephrosis, presence of renal stones, patient age, diabetes, prior endopyelotomy history, and retrograde pyelography history were considered as predictors of pyeloplasty failure. The failure is usually defined by persistent pain, persistent radiographic obstruction (infection or stones), continued decline in split renal function, or a combination of the above. And the failure of pye-loplasty often occurs in the first 2 years after the surgery. The available options for managing recurrent UPJO with a salvageable renal unit include endopyelotomy, re-do pyeloplasty, stent implantation, percutaneous nephrostomy, ureterocalicostomy, and nephrectomy. Re-do pyeloplasty has such merits as high successful rates and rare complications, compared with endopyelotomy or ureterocalicostomy. And some investigators think that re-do pyeloplasty should be regarded as the gold standard for secondary therapy if feasible. Open pyeloplasty can enlarge the operating field, facilitate the exposure of the ureteropelvic junction, reduce the difficulty of operation, and thus reduce the occurrence of complications. There are no significant differences among the success rates of re-do pyeloplasty under open approach, traditional laparoscopy and robot-assisted laparoscopy, according to previous reports. However, traditional laparoscopic and robot-assisted pyeloplasty give advantages of cosmetology, small trauma, less postoperative pain, speedy recovery and shorter hospitalization, fewer complications and lower recurrent rates. If the primary pyeloplasty is an open operation in retroperitoneal approach, the traditional laparoscopic and robotic operation with retroperitoneal approach should be considered for secondary repair. The cause of recurrent UPJO should be evaluated before surgery and identified intraoperatively to minimize the possibility of recurrence.

Our experience on management of failed pediatric pyeloplasty

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to assess the outcomes of salvage procedures after failed pediatric pyeloplasty. Recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction treatment is a difficult course. The salvage surgery is more challenging in the pediatric population. We aimed to assess the outcomes of salvage procedures after failed pediatric pyeloplasty to determine the most efficient surgical intervention.

METHODS

40 children with 41 renal units who have been treated for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after pyeloplasty were analyzed retrospectively. The outcomes of all initial and sequent interventions were assessed including redo pyeloplasty, endopyelotomy and balloon dilatation.

RESULTS

Children's mean age at initial intervention for failed pyeloplasty was 45.9 (± 46.4) months. Our mean follow-up time after the initial intervention was 46.9 (± 46.6) months. The success rate of our initial treatment methods was 48.7% (20/41). Although redo pyeloplasty was the most successful intervention (83.3%) than DJS placement (45.5%), endopyelotomy (50%) and balloon dilatation (30.8%), the statistical difference was not significant in the initial operations. The overall success rates of redo pyeloplasty, double-J stent placement, endopyelotomy and balloon dilatation were 78.9%, 46.1%, 38.8% and 29.4%, respectively (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Redo pyeloplasty provides the best improvement in recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. In selected patients, minimal invasive methods such as endopyelotomy and balloon dilatation offer alternative treatment.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty as management for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a comparison study with primary pyeloplasty

Background

To analyze the perioperative parameters and outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) and compare them with our series of RALP for primary UPJO. Secondary pyeloplasty can be a challenging procedure because of ureteral devascularization, fibrosis and dense stricture formation. Robotic approach could be adjunct to these repairs.

Methods

Between August 2015 to March 2019, 96 patients in our hospital underwent RALP, with 32 patients as secondary intervention for recurrent UPJO. We compared the perioperative parameters of RALP for both primary UPJO and recurrent UPJO. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, postoperative outcomes and complications from both groups were analyzed and compared.

Results

RALP was successfully performed for all cases in both groups. The median operating time was longer for secondary RALP than for primary RALP [125 (108.5–155) vs. 151 (120–190) minutes, P=0.004]. There were no conversions to open surgery or significant perioperative complications. No difference in blood loss, transfusion rate and perioperative complication rates was noted between the two groups. The success rates were 98.44% (63/64) and 96.88% (31/32) at a median follow up of 32 and 20 months (P=0.001) for the primary and secondary groups, respectively.

Conclusions

Secondary RALP is associated with significantly longer operative time as compared to primary RALP, especially during the exposure of the UPJO, however it is a safe surgical modality for recurrent UPJO with durable outcome. RALP should be an alternative treatment modality for recurrent UPJO whenever the facility and expert are available.

Multi-institutional Experience Comparing Outcomes of Adult Patients Undergoing Secondary Versus Primary Robotic Pyeloplasty

OBJECTIVE

To describe surgical techniques and peri-operative outcomes with secondary robotic pyeloplasty (RP), and compare them to those of primary RP.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our multi-institutional, collaborative of reconstructive robotic ureteral surgery (CORRUS) database for all consecutive patients who underwent RP between April 2012 and September 2019. Patients were grouped according to whether they underwent a primary or secondary pyeloplasty (performed for a recurrent stricture after previously failed pyeloplasty). Perioperative outcomes and surgical techniques were compared using nonparametric independent sample median tests and chi-square tests; P < .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Of 158 patients, 28 (17.7%) and 130 (82.3%) underwent secondary and primary RP, respectively. Secondary RP, compared to primary RP, was associated with a higher median estimated blood loss (100.0 vs 50.0 milliliters, respectively; P < .01) and longer operative time (188.0 vs 136.0 minutes, respectively; P = .02). There was no difference in major (Clavien >2) complications (P = .29). At a median follow-up of 21.1 (IQR: 11.8-34.7) months, there was no difference in success between secondary and primary RP groups (85.7% vs 92.3%, respectively; P = .44). Buccal mucosa graft onlay ureteroplasty was performed more commonly (35.7% vs 0.0%, respectively, P < .01) and near-infrared fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green was utilized more frequently (67.9% vs 40.8%, respectively; P < .01) for secondary vs primary repair.

CONCLUSION

Although performing secondary RP is technically challenging, it is a safe and effective method for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after a previously failed pyeloplasty. Buccal mucosa graft onlay ureteroplasty and utilization of near-infrared fluorescence with indocyanine green may be particularly useful in the re-operative setting.

Risk Factors and Management Options for the Adult Failed Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction Repair in the Era of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Approaches: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Guidelines for the management of pyeloplasty failure remain elusive given the rarity of this condition and the difficulty of integrating and analyzing reported outcomes given the varying definition of failures. In this article, we aim to review the existing literature on risk factors that may influence the surgical outcomes of reconstructive pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Furthermore, we discuss management options and review success outcomes of treatment options for patients with pyeloplasty failure.

Is secondary robotic pyeloplasty safe and effective as primary robotic pyeloplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RLP) has excellent surgical safety and efficacy in primary pyeloplasty. In recent, the application of robotics has explored to more complex surgical conditions such as failed pyeloplasty. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the surgical and clinical outcomes of secondary RLP compared with primary RLP. Following PRISMA guidelines, we carried out an extensive literature search in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar to extract the published articles comparing primary vs. secondary RLP up to April 2019. Interested surgical and clinical outcomes were extracted from each study and then used RevMan 5.3 Software for meta-analysis comparison. Furthermore, the quality of each study was assessed using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Our search has yielded seven studies that met our inclusion criteria. These studies contained 613 vs. 107 patients in primary vs. secondary RLP, respectively. Using random effect model, the analysis showed no statistical difference between the groups in the presence of a crossing vessel, complications, length of hospital stays (LOS), and follow-up period. However, the operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and recurrence rate were significantly higher in the secondary RLP compared with primary RLP (p = 0.004), (p = 0.01), and (p = 0.04), respectively. Our results indicate that secondary RLP is associated with significantly increased operative time and EBL and higher recurrence rates compared with primary RLP. We believe that our findings might help surgeon's decision making in patient selection and consultation during redo pyeloplasty surgical planning.

Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty among children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) is more beneficial than open procedures. However, studies on laparoscopic management of cases with secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (SUPJO) after previous failed pyeloplasty in the pediatric population are lacking. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the difference between redo LP (RLP) and redo open pyeloplasty (ROP) for children with SUPJO, focusing on certain criteria. All recent studies on RLP and ROP in children with SUPJO were searched. Search engines such as Medline, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews were used. Sixty citations were specified. Two reviewers extracted data independently, screened the titles, and assessed the quality of each citation. Continuous data reported as a weighted mean difference (WMD) (95% confidence interval) and dichotomous data reported as relative risk were used. We measured the length of hospital stay (LOS) and operative time using weighted mean and success and complication rates using risk difference and odds ratio (OR). A random effects model was used to pool OR that was tested for heterogeneity. We specified six publications that minutely met our eligibility standards. Meta-analysis of given data resulted in the following: ROP showed reduction in operative time by 12 min (WMD: 12.7 min; P = 0.14). RLP had shorter LOS than ROP (WMD: 0.6 days; P < 0.01). No difference was observed in complication and success rates (OR: 0.8; P = 0.50 and OR: 1.2; P = 0.51, respectively). In conclusion, RLP seems to be better than ROP in terms of LOS reduction; however, both are comparable with respect to success and complication rates, especially postoperative urine leakage.