Advertisement

The Utility of Radiologic and Symptomatic Surveillance After Minimally-Invasive Adult Pyeloplasty

Published:January 24, 2023DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2023.01.013

      ABSTRACT

      Objective

      To evaluate different types of failure after minimally-invasive pyeloplasty (MIP) when stratified by initial radiologic study and symptoms after ureteral stent removal.

      Methods

      We retrospectively reviewed adults who underwent MIP (1996-2019) at a single academic center. Patients with at least 11 months of follow-up and patients who had a Mag3 scan as their initial post-operative imaging were included. Post-procedure, patients were categorized as having normal, equivocal, or obstructed imaging based on their initial radiologic test. Patients who were obstructed were excluded. Primary outcome was procedural failure, defined as the need for a procedure to treat recurrent obstruction. Secondary outcomes were radiologic failure and symptomatic failure. Groups were compared to assess for statistical significance (p<0.05).

      Results

      Overall, 122 patients met inclusion criteria. On initial post-operative imaging, 108 (89%) patients had no obstruction, and 14 (11%) had equivocal findings. The procedural failure rate was 6.5% in the unobstructed group and 28.6% in the equivocal group (p = 0.023). Seven unobstructed patients (6.5%) and two equivocal patients (14.3%) eventually experienced radiologic failure (p=0.275). Among patients who had no obstruction and remained asymptomatic, only one (0.9%) required a salvage procedure.

      Conclusion

      Recurrent obstruction after pyeloplasty varied based on the outcome of the initial radiologic study. These rates can be used to counsel patients and guide physicians’ choice of surveillance schedules. The risk of future failure is very low in asymptomatic patients with normal initial imaging. The utility of routine radiologic surveillance in these patients may be limited.

      Keywords

      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

        • Khan F
        • Ahmed K
        • Lee N
        • Challacombe B
        • Khan MS
        • Dasgupta P.
        Management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults.
        Nat Rev Urol. 2014; 11: 629-638https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2014.240
        • Moon D
        • Napier-Hemy T.
        Pelvic ureteric junction obstruction: Natural history, nephrological considerations and current evidence base for surgical management in poorer functioning kidneys.
        Journal of Clinical Urology. 2020; 13: 116-121https://doi.org/10.1177/2051415819872916
        • Stein RJ
        • Gill IS
        • Desai MM.
        Comparison of surgical approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction: endopyeloplasty versus endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
        Curr Urol Rep. 2007; 8: 140-149https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-007-0064-y
        • Sukumar S
        • Sun M
        • Karakiewicz PI
        • et al.
        National trends and disparities in the use of minimally invasive adult pyeloplasty.
        J Urol. 2012; 188: 913-918https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.05.013
        • Rasool S
        • Singh M
        • Jain S
        • et al.
        Comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted pyeloplasty for pelviureteric junction obstruction in adult patients.
        J Robot Surg. June 20, 2019; (Published online)https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00991-6
        • Jacobs BL
        • Lai JC
        • Seelam R
        • et al.
        Variation in the Use of Open Pyeloplasty, Minimally Invasive Pyeloplasty, and Endopyelotomy for the Treatment of Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Adults.
        J Endourol. 2017; 31: 210-215https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0688
        • Hanske J
        • Sanchez A
        • Schmid M
        • et al.
        Comparison of 30-day perioperative outcomes in adults undergoing open versus minimally invasive pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: analysis of 593 patients in a prospective national database.
        World J Urol. 2015; 33: 2107-2113https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1586-4
        • Light A
        • Karthikeyan S
        • Maruthan S
        • Elhage O
        • Danuser H
        • Dasgupta P.
        Peri-operative outcomes and complications after laparoscopic vs robot-assisted dismembered pyeloplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        BJU Int. 2018; 122: 181-194https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14170
        • Pouliot F
        • Lebel MH
        • Audet JF
        • Dujardin T.
        Determination of success by objective scintigraphic criteria after laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
        J Endourol. 2010; 24: 299-304https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0134
        • Traumann M
        • Kluth LA
        • Schmid M
        • et al.
        [Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in adults: Excellent long-term results of primary pyeloplasty].
        Urologe A. 2015; 54: 703-708https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-014-3654-6
        • Jacobs BL
        • Lai JC
        • Seelam R
        • et al.
        The Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction.
        Urology. 2018; 111: 72-77https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.09.002
        • Etafy M
        • Pick D
        • Said S
        • et al.
        Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience.
        J Urol. 2011; 185: 2196-2200https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.054
        • Yanke BV
        • Lallas CD
        • Pagnani C
        • McGinnis DE
        • Bagley DH.
        The minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a review of our experience during the last decade.
        J Urol. 2008; 180: 1397-1402https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.020
        • Thom MR
        • Haseebuddin M
        • Roytman TM
        • Benway BM
        • Bhayani SB
        • Figenshau RS.
        Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: outcomes for primary and secondary repairs, a single institution experience.
        Int Braz J Urol. 2012; 38: 77-83https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-55382012000100011
        • Dirie NI
        • Ahmed MA
        • Wang S.
        Is secondary robotic pyeloplasty safe and effective as primary robotic pyeloplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Robot Surg. 2020; 14: 241-248https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00997-0
        • Lam W
        • Fernando A
        • Issa R
        • et al.
        Is routine postoperative diuresis renography indicated in all adult patients after pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction?.
        Urology. 2015; 85: 246-251https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.09.033
        • Gurbuz C
        • Best SL
        • Donnally C
        • Mir S
        • Pearle MS
        • Cadeddu JA.
        Intermediate term outcomes associated with the surveillance of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults.
        J Urol. 2011; 185: 926-929https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.10.082
        • Harrow BR
        • Bagrodia A
        • Olweny EO
        • Faddegon S
        • Cadeddu JA
        • Gahan JC.
        Renal function after laparoendoscopic single site pyeloplasty.
        J Urol. 2013; 190: 565-569https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.102
        • Ozayar A
        • Friedlander JI
        • Shakir NA
        • Gahan JC
        • Cadeddu JA
        • Morgan MSC.
        Equivocal ureteropelvic junction obstruction on diuretic renogram–should minimally invasive pyeloplasty be offered to symptomatic patients?.
        J Urol. 2015; 193: 1278-1282https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.100
        • Hopf HL
        • Bahler CD
        • Sundaram CP.
        Long-term Outcomes of Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction.
        Urology. 2016; 90: 106-110https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.12.050
        • Madi R
        • Roberts WW
        • Wolf Jr., JS
        Late failures after laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
        Urology. 2008; 71 (discussion 680-1): 677-680https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.070
        • Hsi RS
        • Holt SK
        • Gore JL
        • Harper JD.
        Trends in followup imaging after adult pyeloplasty.
        J Urol. 2014; 191: 1357-1362https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.052
        • Stamm AW
        • Akapame S
        • Durfy S
        • Kozlowski PM.
        Robotic Pyeloplasty in Patients with Equivocal Diuretic Renogram.
        Urology Practice. 2019; 6: 364-368https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000053
        • Stamm AW
        • Akapame S
        • Durfy S
        • Du CC
        • Kozlowski PM.
        Outcomes after Robotic-assisted Pyeloplasty in Patients Presenting with Pain Versus Nonpain Presenting Symptoms.
        Urology. 2019; 125: 111-117https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.10.046
        • Ho V
        • Heslin MJ
        • Yun H
        • Howard L.
        Trends in hospital and surgeon volume and operative mortality for cancer surgery.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2006; 13: 851-858https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2006.07.021
        • Nally DM
        • Sørensen J
        • Valentelyte G
        • et al.
        Volume and in-hospital mortality after emergency abdominal surgery: a national population-based study.
        BMJ Open. 2019; 9e032183https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032183
        • Leonard PSJ
        • Crouse DL
        • Boudreau JG
        • Gupta N
        • McDonald JT.
        Provider volume and maternal complications after Caesarean section: results from a population-based study.
        BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20: 37https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2709-5