Advertisement

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.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Etafy M
        • Pick D
        • Said S
        • et al.
        Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience.
        J Urol. 2011; 185: 2196-2200
        • Hopf HL
        • Bahler CD
        • Sundaram CP
        Long-term outcomes of Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
        Urology. 2016; 90: 106-110
        • Thomas JC
        • DeMarco RT
        • Donohoe JM
        • Adams MC
        • Pope JC
        • Brock JW
        Management of the failed pyeloplasty: a contemporary review.
        J Urol. 2005; 174: 2363-2366
        • Wilkinson AG
        • Azmy A.
        Balloon dilatation of the pelviureteric junction in children: early experience and pitfalls.
        Pediatr Radiol. 1996; 26: 882-886
        • Braga LH
        • Lorenzo AJ
        • Skeldon S
        • et al.
        Failed pyeloplasty in children: comparative analysis of retrograde endopyelotomy versus redo pyeloplasty.
        J Urol. 2007; 178: 2571-2575
        • Park J
        • Kim WS
        • Hong B
        • Park T
        • Park HK
        Long-term outcome of secondary endopyelotomy after failed primary intervention for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
        Int J Urol. 2008; 15: 490-494
        • Atug F
        • Burgess SV
        • Castle EP
        • Thomas R
        Role of robotics in the management of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
        Int J Clin Pract. 2006; 60: 9-11
        • Niver BE
        • Agalliu I
        • Bareket R
        • Mufarrij P
        • Shah O
        • Stifelman MD
        Analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyleloplasty for primary versus secondary repair in 119 consecutive cases.
        Urology. 2012; 79: 689-694
        • Hemal AK
        • Mishra S
        • Mukharjee S
        • Suryavanshi M
        Robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in patients of ureteropelvic junction obstruction with previously failed open surgical repair.
        Int J Urol. 2008; 15: 744-746
        • Mufarrij PW
        • Woods M
        • Shah OD
        • et al.
        Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience.
        J Urol. 2008; 180: 1391-1396
        • Sivaraman A
        • Leveillee RJ
        • Patel MB
        • et al.
        Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience.
        Urology. 2012; 79: 351-355
        • Lee Z
        • Llukani E
        • Reilly CE
        • Mydlo JH
        • Lee DI
        • Eun DD
        Single surgeon experience with robot-assisted ureteroureterostomy for pathologies at the proximal, middle, and distal ureter in adults.
        J Endourol. 2013; 27: 994-999
        • Zhao LC
        • Weinberg AC
        • Lee Z
        • et al.
        Robotic ureteral reconstruction using buccal mucosa grafts: a multi-institutional experience.
        Eur Urol. 2018; 73: 419-426
        • Anderson JC
        • Hynes W.
        Retrocaval ureter; a case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation.
        Br J Urol. 1949; 21: 209-214
        • Fenger C
        Konservative Operation fur renale Retention infolge von Strikturen oder Klappenbildung am Ureter. 52. Langenbecks Arch Chir, 1900: 528-534
        • Foley FE.
        A new plastic operation for stricture at the uretero-pelvic junction. Report of 20 operations. 1937.
        J Urol. 2002; 167: 1075-1095
        • Lee Z
        • Waldorf BT
        • Cho EY
        • Liu JC
        • Metro MJ
        • Eun DD
        Robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft for the management of complex ureteral strictures.
        J Urol. 2017; 198: 1430-1435
        • Lee Z
        • Moore B
        • Giusto L
        • Eun DD
        Use of indocyanine green during robot-assisted ureteral reconstructions.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 291-298
        • Vannahme M
        • Mathur S
        • Davenport K
        • Timoney AG
        • Keeley FX
        The management of secondary pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction - a comparison of pyeloplasty and endopyelotomy.
        BJU Int. 2014; 113: 108-112
        • Sundaram CP
        • Grubb RL
        • Rehman J
        • et al.
        Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
        J Urol. 2003; 169: 2037-2040
        • Eden C
        • Gianduzzo T
        • Chang C
        • Thiruchelvam N
        • Jones A
        Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary and secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
        J Urol. 2004; 172: 2308-2311
        • Hammady A
        • Elbadry MS
        • Rashed EN
        • et al.
        Laparoscopic repyeloplasty after failed open repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a case-matched multi-institutional study.
        Scand J Urol. 2017; 51: 402-406
        • Khan N
        • Abboudi H
        • Khan MS
        • Dasgupta P
        • Ahmed K
        Measuring the surgical ‘learning curve’: methods, variables and competency.
        BJU Int. 2014; 113: 504-508
        • Madi R
        • Roberts WW
        • Wolf JS
        Late failures after laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
        Urology. 2008; 71 (discussion 680-671): 677-680