Objective: To describe and analyze our experience with secondary robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) and conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) in treating recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) after primary pyeloplasty. Methods: Patients who underwent secondary RALP or LP for recurrent UPJO were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline characteristics, detailed history of previous pyeloplasty, operative profile and follow-up data were collected and analyzed. Results: Among 29 patients presented with recurrent UPJO, 15 patients underwent secondary RALP. Both groups (RALP or LP) were comparable in baseline characteristics and detailed history of previous pyeloplasty. The mean operative time, suturing time, and hospitalization time of patients in RALP group were significantly less than those in LP group. The mean operative time of RALP group was 2.1 h, while the mean operative time of LP group was 3.23 h. The average suturing time of LP (62.43 min) is about 3 times that of RALP (21.47 min). The overall mean follow-up data was 23 months. The success rate of the RALP group and LP group was 87.7 and 85.7% respectively. Conclusion: Compared to LP, RALP may be a better choice for the treatment of recurrent UPJO. Further high-quality clinical studies are needed to confirm the superior nature of RALP.

Keywords:
Recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction, Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Secondary pyeloplasty
1.
Salem YH, Majd M, Rushton HG, Belman AB. Outcome analysis of pediatric pyeloplasty as a function of patient age, presentation and differential renal function.
J Urol
. 1995 Nov;154(5):1889–93.
2.
Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty.
J Urol
. 1993 Dec;150(6):1795–9.
3.
Marcovich R, Jacobson AI, Aldana JP, Lee BR, Smith AD. Practice trends in contemporary management of adult ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
Urology
. 2003 Jul;62(1):22–5.
4.
Khan F, Ahmed K, Lee N, Challacombe B, Khan MS, Dasgupta P. Management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults.
Nat Rev Urol
. 2014 Nov;11(11):629–38.
5.
Poulsen EU, Jørgensen TM, Taagehøj-Jensen F, Djurhuus JC. The functional outcome of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty for hydronephrosis.
Scand J Urol Nephrol
. 1987;21(3):213–7.
6.
Poulakis V, Witzsch U, Schultheiss D, Rathert P, Becht E. [History of ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair (pyeloplasty). From Trendelenburg (1886) to the present].
Urologe A
. 2004 Dec;43(12):1544–59.
7.
Wolf JS Jr. Laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty.
J Endourol
. 2011 Feb;25(2):173–8.
8.
Mikkelsen SS, Rasmussen BS, Jensen TM, Hanghøj-Petersen W, Christensen PO. Long-term follow-up of patients with hydronephrosis treated by Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty.
Br J Urol
. 1992 Aug;70(2):121–4.
9.
O’Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S, Jones M, Pickup C, Atkinson C, et al. The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty.
BJU Int
. 2001 Mar;87(4):287–9.
10.
Göğüş C, Karamürsel T, Tokatli Z, Yaman O, Ozdiler E, Göğüş O. Long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty in 180 adults in the era of endourologic procedures.
Urol Int
. 2004;73(1):11–4.
11.
Lucas SM, Sundaram CP, Wolf JS Jr, Leveillee RJ, Bird VG, Aziz M, et al. Factors that impact the outcome of minimally invasive pyeloplasty: results of the Multi-institutional Laparoscopic and Robotic Pyeloplasty Collaborative Group.
J Urol
. 2012 Feb;187(2):522–7.
12.
O. S. CULP. J. H. DeWEERD: A pelvic flap operation for certain types of ureteropelvic obstruction; preliminary report.
Proc Staff Meet Mayo Clin
. 1951;25:483–8.
13.
Scardino PL, Prince CL. Vertical flap ureteropelvioplasty.
South Med J
. 1953 Apr;46(4):325–31.
14.
Simforoosh N, Basiri A, Tabibi A, Danesh AK, Sharifi-Aghdas F, Ziaee SA, et al. A comparison between laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
Urol J
. 2004;1(3):165–9.
15.
Braga LH, Lorenzo AJ, Skeldon S, Dave S, Bagli DJ, Khoury AE, et al. Failed pyeloplasty in children: comparative analysis of retrograde endopyelotomy versus redo pyeloplasty.
J Urol
. 2007 Dec;178(6):2571–5; discussion 2575.
16.
Veenboer PW, Chrzan R, Dik P, Klijn AJ, de Jong TP. Secondary endoscopic pyelotomy in children with failed pyeloplasty.
Urology
. 2011 Jun;77(6):1450–4.
17.
Jabbour ME, Goldfischer ER, Klima WJ, Stravodimos KG, Smith AD. Endopyelotomy after failed pyeloplasty: the long-term results.
J Urol
. 1998 Sep;160(3 Pt 1):690–2; discussion 692–3.
18.
Preminger GM, Clayman RV, Nakada SY, Babayan RK, Albala DM, Fuchs GJ, et al. A multicenter clinical trial investigating the use of a fluoroscopically controlled cutting balloon catheter for the management of ureteral and ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
J Urol
. 1997 May;157(5):1625–9.
19.
Stilling NM, Jung H, Nørby B, Osther SS, Osther PJ. Retrograde ureteroscopic holmium laser endopyelotomy in a selected population of patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
Scand J Urol Nephrol
. 2009;43(1):68–72.
20.
Naito S, Yamaguchi A, Tanaka M, Kimiya K, Matsumoto T, Kumazawa J, et al. Endopyelotomy for treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
Urol Int
. 1991;46(4):309–12.
21.
Rassweiler JJ, Subotic S, Feist-Schwenk M, Sugiono M, Schulze M, Teber D, et al. Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: long-term experience with an algorithm for laser endopyelotomy and laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty.
J Urol
. 2007 Mar;177(3):1000–5.
22.
Ost MC, Kaye JD, Guttman MJ, Lee BR, Smith AD. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus antegrade endopyelotomy: comparison in 100 patients and a new algorithm for the minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
Urology
. 2005 Nov;66(5 Suppl):47–51.
23.
Hoenig DM, Shalhav AL, Elbahnasy AM, McDougall EM, Smith D, Clayman RV. Impact of etiology of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction on outcome of endopyelotomy.
J Endourol
. 1998 Apr;12(2):131–3.
24.
Sundaram CP, Grubb RL 3rd, Rehman J, Yan Y, Chen C, Landman J, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
J Urol
. 2003 Jun;169(6):2037–40.
25.
Gupta M, Tuncay OL, Smith AD. Open surgical exploration after failed endopyelotomy: a 12-year perspective.
J Urol
. 1997 May;157(5):1613–8.
26.
Khoder WY, Waidelich R, Becker AJ, Karl A, Haseke N, Bauer RM, et al. Patients’ perception of surgical outcomes and quality of life after retroperitoneoscopic and open pyeloplasty.
Urol Int
. 2014;92(1):74–82.
27.
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 Oct;180(4):1397–402.
28.
Singh O, Gupta SS, Arvind NK. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: an analysis of first 100 cases and important lessons learned.
Int Urol Nephrol
. 2011 Mar;43(1):85–90.
29.
Tan BJ, Rastinehad AR, Marcovich R, Smith AD, Lee BR. Trends in ureteropelvic junction obstruction management among urologists in the United States.
Urology
. 2005 Feb;65(2):260–4.
30.
Hemal AK, Mukherjee S, Singh K. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus robotic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a series of 60 cases performed by a single surgeon.
Can J Urol
. 2010 Feb;17(1):5012–6.
31.
Wang F, Xu Y, Zhong H. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Scand J Urol
. 2013 Aug;47(4):251–64.
32.
Passerotti CC, Passerotti AM, Dall’Oglio MF, Leite KR, Nunes RL, Srougi M, et al. Comparing the quality of the suture anastomosis and the learning curves associated with performing open, freehand, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in a swine animal model.
J Am Coll Surg
. 2009 Apr;208(4):576–86.
33.
Hammady A, Elbadry MS, Rashed EN, Moussa A, Gamal W, Dawood W, et al. Laparoscopic repyeloplasty after failed open repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a case-matched multi-institutional study.
Scand J Urol
. 2017 Oct;51(5):402–6.
34.
Qadri SJ, Khan M. Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: our experience.
Urol Int
. 2010;85(3):309–13.
35.
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 Jan-Feb;38(1):77–83.
36.
Porpiglia F, Morra I, Bertolo R, Manfredi M, Mele F, Fiori C. Pure mini-laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty in an adult population: feasibility, safety, and functional results after one year of follow-up.
Urology
. 2012 Mar;79(3):728–32.
37.
C. Fiori, I. Morra, R. Bertolo, F. Mele, M. L. Chiarissi, F. Porpiglia: Standard vs mini-laparoscopic pyeloplasty: perioperative outcomes and cosmetic results. BJU Int 2013;3(Pt B):E121–6.
38.
Pini G, Goezen AS, Schulze M, Hruza M, Klein J, Rassweiler JJ. Small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique (SMART) pyeloplasty in adult patients: comparison of cosmetic and post-operative pain outcomes in a matched-pair analysis with standard retroperitoneoscopy: preliminary report.
World J Urol
. 2012 Oct;30(5):605–11.
39.
Al Nasser M, Pini G, Gözen AS, Elashry OM, Akin Y, Klein J, et al. Comparative study for evaluating the cosmetic outcome of small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique (SMART) with standard retroperitoneoscopy using the Observer Scar Assessment Scale: are small incisions a big deal?
J Endourol
. 2014 Dec;28(12):1409–13.
40.
Fiori C, Bertolo R, Manfredi M, Mele F, Amparore D, Cattaneo G, et al. Robot-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site versus mini-laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparison of perioperative, functional and cosmetic results.
Minerva Urol Nefrol
. 2017 Dec;69(6):604–12.
41.
Di Grazia E, Nicolosi D. Ureteroscopic laser endopyelotomy in secondary UPJ obstruction after pyeloplasty failure.
Urol Int
. 2005;75(4):333–6.
42.
Thomas JC, DeMarco RT, Donohoe JM, Adams MC, Pope JC 4th, Brock JW 3rd. Management of the failed pyeloplasty: a contemporary review.
J Urol
. 2005 Dec;174(6):2363–6.
43.
Piaggio LA, Noh PH, González R. Reoperative laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: comparison with open surgery.
J Urol
. 2007 May;177(5):1878–82.
44.
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 Aug;15(8):744–6.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.