We have located links that may give you full text access.
Endopyelotomy after failed pyeloplasty: the long-term results.
Journal of Urology 1998 September
PURPOSE: Endopyelotomy has been proposed as a technique to treat ureteropelvic junction obstruction after failed open pyeloplasty. However, to our knowledge no long-term results of this treatment have been reported. We report the long-term followup of a cohort of patients in whom pyeloplasty failed and who subsequently were treated with endopyelotomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1985 to February 1996, 72 patients in whom open surgical pyeloplasty failed were treated with percutaneous endopyelotomy. Mean patient age was 35 years (range 5 to 82). The interval between pyeloplasty and subsequent failure ranged from 2 months to 30 years (mean 57 months). The major presenting symptoms were pain in 82% of cases, fever and urinary tract infections in 37.5%, stone formation in 25% and gross hematuria in 21%.
RESULTS: Antegrade endopyelotomy using a hooked knife was performed in all patients with no unusual difficulty and minimal complications. A total of 63 patients (87.5%) had long lasting clinical and radiographic treatment success after a mean followup of 88.5 months. Of the 9 endopyelotomy failures (12.5%) 7 (77.8%) were detected immediately after stent removal at 6 weeks, 1 (11.1%) at 6 months and 1 (11.1%) at 10 months postoperatively (mean failure interval 3.3 months). The failures were corrected with repeat endopyelotomy in 1 patient, pyeloplasty in 3, ileal interposition in 1 and nephrectomy in 4.
CONCLUSIONS: Endopyelotomy is the treatment of choice for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after failed pyeloplasty, with a high and sustained long-term success rate and no reported new failures after 1-year followup. Furthermore, endopyelotomy is technically easier with less morbidity than repeat open pyeloplasty.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1985 to February 1996, 72 patients in whom open surgical pyeloplasty failed were treated with percutaneous endopyelotomy. Mean patient age was 35 years (range 5 to 82). The interval between pyeloplasty and subsequent failure ranged from 2 months to 30 years (mean 57 months). The major presenting symptoms were pain in 82% of cases, fever and urinary tract infections in 37.5%, stone formation in 25% and gross hematuria in 21%.
RESULTS: Antegrade endopyelotomy using a hooked knife was performed in all patients with no unusual difficulty and minimal complications. A total of 63 patients (87.5%) had long lasting clinical and radiographic treatment success after a mean followup of 88.5 months. Of the 9 endopyelotomy failures (12.5%) 7 (77.8%) were detected immediately after stent removal at 6 weeks, 1 (11.1%) at 6 months and 1 (11.1%) at 10 months postoperatively (mean failure interval 3.3 months). The failures were corrected with repeat endopyelotomy in 1 patient, pyeloplasty in 3, ileal interposition in 1 and nephrectomy in 4.
CONCLUSIONS: Endopyelotomy is the treatment of choice for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after failed pyeloplasty, with a high and sustained long-term success rate and no reported new failures after 1-year followup. Furthermore, endopyelotomy is technically easier with less morbidity than repeat open pyeloplasty.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app