Volume 2, Issue 1 (Winter 2017)                   J Res Urol 2017, 2(1): 9-14 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Amirzargar H, Amirzargar M A, Mousavi Bahar S H. Effectiveness of Antegrade Endopyelotomy for treating Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Children . J Res Urol. 2017; 2 (1) :9-14
URL: http://urology.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-46-en.html
Professor Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran , dr_Amirzargar@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (139 Views)
Background and Objective: Significant advances in the endourology and utilization of minimally invasive procedures have resulted in the improvement of the management of cases with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). However, the effectiveness and successfulness of this technique have not been evaluated in children. Hence, the present study assessed the efficacy and safety of antegrade endopyelotomy in children.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a case series study from 2001 to 2012 consisting of 58 patients, aged two days to seven years, who were diagnosed with UPJO and treated with antegrade endopyelotomy. The study endpoint was to assess the necessity for scheduling repeated endopyelotomy, performing open pyeloplasty as well as recording any damage to parenchyma and length of hospital stay.
Results: Antegrade endopyelotomy was successfully performed in 53 out of 58 studied children (91.3%) without any complications or necessity for further interventions. However, repeated endopyelotomy was scheduled for five cases, and open pyeloplasty was conducted in two cases because of the large size of pelvis and delay in urine drainage. DMSA scanning before and after antegrade endopyelotomy for all patients revealed no parenchymal damage. The mean hospital stay was also 2.5 days. DTPA was performed in all patients to evaluate the success of endopyelotomy before and after the operation.
Conclusion: Antegrade endopyelotomy is a safe and efficacious method for treating UPJO in children. It, therefore, provides a minimally invasive alternative to conventional open pyeloplasty.
Full-Text [PDF 981 kb]   (22 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Applicable | Subject: Laparoscopy
Received: 2017/12/2 | Accepted: 2018/01/17 | Published: 2018/01/17

References
1. Karlin GS, Badlani GH, Smith AD. Endopyelotomy versus open pyeloplasty: comparison in 88 patients. J Urol. 1988;140(3):476–8. [DOI] [PubMed]
2. Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ. Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol. 2003;44(3):340–5. [DOI] [PubMed]
3. Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N, McDougall EM. Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2003;17(3):155–60. [DOI] [PubMed]
4. Minervini A, Davenport K, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG. Antegrade versus retrograde endopyelotomy for pelvi-ureteric junction (PUJ) obstruction. Eur Urol. 2006;49(3):536–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Ko R, Duvdevani M, Denstedt JD. Antegrade percutaneous endopyelotomy. Curr Urol Rep. 2007;8(2):128–33. [DOI] [PubMed]
6. Knudsen BE, Cook AJ, Watterson JD, Beiko DT, Nott L, Razvi H et al. Percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy: long-term results from one institution. Urology. 2004;63(2):230–4. [DOI] [PubMed]
7. Surur DM, Iglesias Prieto JI, Mancebo Gómez JM, Massarra Halabi J, Pérez-Castro Ellendt E. [Anterograde endopyelotomy]. Arch Esp Urol. 2002;55(4):431–8. [PubMed]
8. Kletscher BA, Segura JW, LeRoy AJ, Patterson DE. Percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy: review of 50 consecutive cases [Erratum in: J Urol 1995;153] [6]. J Urol. 1995 Mar;153(3 Pt 1):701–3. [PubMed]
9. Rodrigues Netto N Jr, Ikari O, Esteves SC, D’Ancona CA. Antegrade endopyelotomy for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in children. Br J Urol. 1996;78(4):607–12. PMID: [DOI] [PubMed]
10. Tan HL, Najmaldin A, Webb DR. Endopyelotomy for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in children. Eur Urol. 1993;24(1):84–8. [DOI] [PubMed]
11. Faerber GJ, Ritchey ML, Bloom DA. Percutaneous endopyelotomy in infants and young children after failed open pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1995;154(4):1495–7. [DOI] [PubMed]
12. Dobry E, Usai P, Studer UE, Danuser H. Is antegrade endopyelotomy really less invasive than open pyeloplasty? Urol Int. 2007;79(2):152–6. [DOI] [PubMed]
13. Amón Sesmero JH, del Valle González N, Rodríguez Toves LA, Conde Redondo C, Rodríguez Tesedo V, Martínez-Sagarra Oceja JM. [Long-term follow-up of antegrade endopyelotomy. Factors that influence the outcome]. Actas Urol Esp. 2009;33(1):64–8. [Article in Spanish] [PubMed]
14. Rodrigues Netto N Jr, Ikari O, Esteves SC, D’Ancona CA. Antegrade endopyelotomy for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in children. Br J Urol. 1996;78(4):607–12. [DOI] [PubMed]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
Write the security code in the box

Send email to the article author


© 2015 All Rights Reserved | Journal of Research in Urology

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb