Endoluminal ultrasonography before retrograde endopyelotomy: can the results match laparoscopic pyeloplasty?
Article first published online: 30 JUL 2009
Volume 91, Issue 4, pages 389–391, March 2003
How to Cite
Parkin, J., Evans, S., Kumar, P.V.S., Timoney, A.G. and Keeley, F.X. (2003), Endoluminal ultrasonography before retrograde endopyelotomy: can the results match laparoscopic pyeloplasty?. BJU International, 91: 389–391. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410X.2003.04103.x
- Issue published online: 30 JUL 2009
- Article first published online: 30 JUL 2009
- Accepted for publication 4 September 2002
- PUJ obstruction;
- crossing vessels;
- endoluminal ultrasonography
In this paper, the authors assess whether endoluminal ultrasonography is helpful when carried out before retrograde endopyelotomy, and ask whether it can help to produce results comparable to laparoscopic pyeloplasty. They found that endopyelotomy was not as good in the presence of crossing vessels, despite using endoluminal ultrasonography, and they propose that laparoscopic pyeloplasty should be used in this situation.
To present the results of endopyelotomy using endoluminal ultrasonography (EUS) to identify crossing vessels, as the success rates of endopyelotomy are generally lower than pyeloplasty, especially in patients with crossing vessels.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Forty-one consecutive patients who underwent EUS before a planned retrograde endopyelotomy were analysed retrospectively. EUS was used to direct the endopyelotomy incision for patients with crossing vessels. Treatment was considered successful if the patient was asymptomatic and unobstructed or improved on renography. The results were compared to those from 18 patients treated by laparoscopic pyeloplasty, some of whom had undergone EUS.
Crossing vessels were identified in 27 of the 41 patients (66%). Primary treatment consisted of endopyelotomy for 26 patients and laparoscopic pyeloplasty for 15. The overall success rate for 24 endopyelotomy patients with an adequate follow-up (mean 19 months) was 71%, with more success in patients with no crossing vessels (11 of 13 (85%) vs six of 11 (55%)). Of the 18 patients treated by laparoscopic pyeloplasty (mean follow-up 15.1 months) 17 were successful.
The results for endopyelotomy were disappointing in patients with crossing vessels, despite using EUS. The results suggest that patients with crossing vessels should be treated by laparoscopic pyeloplasty. More data are needed to compare endopyelotomy with laparoscopic pyeloplasty in patients with no crossing vessels.