| Peer-Reviewed

Feasibility of Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children Since Infancy

Received: 17 July 2022    Accepted: 8 August 2022    Published: 31 August 2022
Views:       Downloads:
Abstract

Background: For children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction, minimally invasive techniques offer better results for patients, but the traditional laparoscopic approach continues to be a surgical challenge, especially in infants, for which the benefit of this approach as a first-line choice is still being discussed. A retrospective analysis was performed on patients diagnosed with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) treated by laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) from January 2014 to December 2019. The ages ranged from 3 months to 16 years; most patients had a primary obstruction, and only five had a previous pyeloplasty. Clinical success was defined as: the resolution of symptoms, diminished hydronephrosis on ultrasound, and improved excretion assessed through a nuclear renal scan. Throughout six years, 71 LPs were performed, of which only 57 met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 3.5 years old. We divided the patients into two groups, group A for 1 year or less, and Group B for children 1 year and older. 16 children presented with hydronephrosis on the right kidney, and 41 on the left. 47 children presented with intrinsic obstruction, and 10 were extrinsic due to an aberrant polar artery. Prenatal hydronephrosis was detected in the majority of patients. The remaining cases presented predominantly with abdominal pain and urinary tract infection. The total mean operative time was 171 min for Group A, and 190 min for Group B. None of the children required conversion to open surgery. There was one major complication in our cohort. Our success rate of 93% was similar to that of the current literature. Our retrospective study reported shorter operative times and less complications through laparoscopic approach in infants. We attribute the shorter operative times to initiating laparoscopic intervention in young children after surpassing the initial learning curve. We recommend prospective studies in comparing both age groups in order to assert the feasibility of this procedure in all ages.

Published in International Journal of Clinical Urology (Volume 6, Issue 2)
DOI 10.11648/j.ijcu.20220602.13
Page(s) 76-83
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction, Pediatrics, Children, Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty

References
[1] Nakada S, Best SL. Management of Upper Urinary Tract Obstruction. In: McDougal, W S, Alan J. Wein, Louis R. Kavoussi, Alan W. Partin, and Craig Peters. Campbell-Walsh Urology 2016; Eleventh Edition Review.
[2] Van der Toorn, Fred et al. Laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty in children from age of 3 years: Our clinical outcomes compared with open surgery. Journal of Pediatric Urology 2013; Volume 9, Issue 2, 161 - 168.
[3] Castagnetti, M., Novara, G., Beniamin, F., Vezzú, B., Rigamonti, W., & Artibani, W. Scintigraphic renal function after unilateral pyeloplasty in children: a systematic review. BJU international 2008; 102 (7), 862–868.
[4] Carpenter, Christina P et al. “Hydronephrosis After Pyeloplasty: "Will It Go Away?" Urology 2018; vol. 121: 158-163.
[5] Tong, Q., Zheng, L., Tang, S., Zeng, F., Du, Z., Mei, H., Wu, Z., Pu, J., & Ruan, Q. Comparison of laparoscopic-assisted versus open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in infants: intermediate results. Urology 2009; 74 (4), 889–893.
[6] Chertin, B., Pollack, A., Koulikov, D., Rabinowitz, R., Hain, D., Hadas-Halpren, I., & Farkas, A. Conservative treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children with antenatal diagnosis of hydronephrosis: lessons learned after 16 years of follow-up. European urology 2006; 49 (4), 734–738.
[7] Mesrobian, H. G., & Mirza, S. P. Hydronephrosis: a view from the inside. Pediatric clinics of North America 2012; 59 (4), 839–851.
[8] Caione, P., Lais, A., & Nappo, S. G. One-port retroperitoneoscopic assisted pyeloplasty versus open dismembered pyeloplasty in young children: preliminary experience. The Journal of Urology 2010; 184 (5), 2109–2115.
[9] Inagaki, T., Rha, K. H., Ong, A. M., Kavoussi, L. R., & Jarrett, T. W. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. BJU international 2005; 95 Suppl 2, 102–105.
[10] Valla, J. S., Breaud, J., Griffin, S. J., Sautot-Vial, N., Beretta, F., Guana, R., Gelas, T., Carpentier, X., Leculee, R., & Steyaert, H. Retroperitoneoscopic vs open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Journal of pediatric urology 2009; 5 (5), 368–373.
[11] Polok, M., Borselle, D., Toczewski, K., Apoznański, W., Jędrzejuk, D., & Patkowski, D. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children: experience of 226 cases at one centre. Archives of medical science: AMS 2019; 16 (4), 858–862.
[12] Schuessler, W. W., Grune, M. T., Tecuanhuey, L. V., & Preminger, G. M. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. The Journal of Urology 1993; 150 (6), 1795–1799.
[13] Peters, C. A., Schlussel, R. N., & Retik, A. B. Pediatric laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. The Journal of Urology 1995; 153 (6), 1962–1965.
[14] Ravi Munver, Ernest Sosa. Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: History, Evolution, and Future. Journal of Endourology 2004; 18 (8), 748-755.
[15] Piaggio LA, Noh PH, González R. Reoperative laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: comparison with open surgery. J Urol 2007; 177: 1878–82.
[16] Al-Hazmi, H., Peycelon, M., Carricaburu, E., Manzoni, G., Neel, K. F., Ali, L., Grapin, C., Paye-Jaouen, A., & El-Ghoneimi, A. Redo Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Infants and Children: Feasible and Effective. Frontiers in pediatrics 2020; 8, 546741.
[17] Landa-Juarez S, Andraca-Dumit R, Garcia-Hernandez C, et al. Treatment of Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction by Minimally Invasive Surgery in Infancy. Rev Mex Urol. 2011; 71 (1): 12-17.
[18] Garcia-Aparicio, L., Tarrado, X., Rodo, J., Krauel, L., Olivares, M., Rovira, J., & Ribo, J. M. Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Pediatric Patients: Our first Cases and Lessons Learned. Urologic Spanish Minutes 2010; 34 (5), 473-476.
[19] Knoedler, J., Han, L., Granberg, C., Kramer, S., Chow, G., Gettman, M., Kimball, B., Moriarty, J., Kim, S., & Husmann, D. Population-based comparison of laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in paediatric pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. BJU international 2013; 111 (7), 1141–1147.
[20] Liu, D. B., Ellimoottil, C., Flum, A. S., Casey, J. T., & Gong, E. M. Contemporary national comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty. Journal of pediatric urology 2014; 10 (4), 610–615.
[21] Mathews R. Antenatal hydronephrosis current evaluation and management. Indian J Urol 2006; 22: 10-4.
[22] Kojima, Y., Umemoto, Y., Mizuno, K., Tozawa, K., Kohri, K., & Hayashi, Y. Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults and children: lessons learned. The Journal of urology 2011; 185 (4), 1461–1467.
[23] Szavay, P. O., Luithle, T., Seitz, G., Warmann, S. W., Haber, P., & Fuchs, J. Functional outcome after laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children. Journal of pediatric urology 2010; 6 (4), 359–363.
[24] Mei, H., Pu, J., Yang, C., Zhang, H., Zheng, L., & Tong, Q. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of endourology 2011; 25 (5), 727–736.
[25] Vicentini, F. C., Dénes, F. T., Borges, L. L., Silva, F. A., Machado, M. G., & Srougi, M. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: Is the outcome different in children under 2 years of age?. Journal of pediatric urology 2008; 4 (5), 348–351.
[26] Abdel-Karim AM, Fahmy A, Moussa A, Rashad H, Elbadry M, Badawy H, Hammady A. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus open pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children, Journal of Pediatric Urology 2016; doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.06.010.
[27] Lee, H. E., Park, K., & Choi, H. An analysis of long-term occurrence of renal complications following pediatric pyeloplasty. Journal of pediatric urology 2014; 10 (6), 1083–1088.
[28] Ardissino, G., Testa, S., Daccò, V., Paglialonga, F., Viganò, S., Felice-Civitillo, C., Battaglino, F., Bettinelli, A., Bordugo, A., Cecchetti, V., De Pascale, S., La Manna, A., Li Volti, S., Maringhini, S., Montini, G., Pennesi, M., & Peratoner, L. Puberty is associated with increased deterioration of renal function in patients with CKD: data from the ItalKid Project. Archives of disease in childhood 2012; 97 (10), 885–888.
[29] Silay MS, Spinoit A-F, Undre S, Fiala V, Tandogdu Z, Garmanova T, Guttilla A, Sancaktutar AA, Haid B, Waldert M, Goyal A, Serefoglu EC, Baldassarre E, Manzoni G, Radford A, Subramaniam R, Cherian A, Hoebeke P, Jacobs M, Rocco B, Yuriy R, Zattoni F, Kocvara R, Koh CJ, Global minimally invasive pyeloplasty study in children: results from the Pediatric Urology Expert Group of the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists working party, Journal of Pediatric Urology 2016; doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.04.007.
[30] Ramachandran, A., Kurien, A., Patil, P., Symons, S., Ganpule, A., Muthu, V., & Desai, M. A novel training model for laparoscopic pyeloplasty using chicken crop. Journal of endourology 2008; 22 (4), 725–728.
[31] Singh A. G. Simulation-based training in laparoscopic urology - Pros and cons. Indian journal of urology: IJU: journal of the Urological Society of India 2018; 34 (4), 245–253.
Cite This Article
  • APA Style

    Sergio Landa Juarez, Iris Saldana Sanchez, Ileana Mendez Gamboa, Carlos Garcia Hernandez. (2022). Feasibility of Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children Since Infancy. International Journal of Clinical Urology, 6(2), 76-83. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcu.20220602.13

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Sergio Landa Juarez; Iris Saldana Sanchez; Ileana Mendez Gamboa; Carlos Garcia Hernandez. Feasibility of Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children Since Infancy. Int. J. Clin. Urol. 2022, 6(2), 76-83. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcu.20220602.13

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Sergio Landa Juarez, Iris Saldana Sanchez, Ileana Mendez Gamboa, Carlos Garcia Hernandez. Feasibility of Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children Since Infancy. Int J Clin Urol. 2022;6(2):76-83. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcu.20220602.13

    Copy | Download

  • @article{10.11648/j.ijcu.20220602.13,
      author = {Sergio Landa Juarez and Iris Saldana Sanchez and Ileana Mendez Gamboa and Carlos Garcia Hernandez},
      title = {Feasibility of Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children Since Infancy},
      journal = {International Journal of Clinical Urology},
      volume = {6},
      number = {2},
      pages = {76-83},
      doi = {10.11648/j.ijcu.20220602.13},
      url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcu.20220602.13},
      eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijcu.20220602.13},
      abstract = {Background: For children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction, minimally invasive techniques offer better results for patients, but the traditional laparoscopic approach continues to be a surgical challenge, especially in infants, for which the benefit of this approach as a first-line choice is still being discussed. A retrospective analysis was performed on patients diagnosed with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) treated by laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) from January 2014 to December 2019. The ages ranged from 3 months to 16 years; most patients had a primary obstruction, and only five had a previous pyeloplasty. Clinical success was defined as: the resolution of symptoms, diminished hydronephrosis on ultrasound, and improved excretion assessed through a nuclear renal scan. Throughout six years, 71 LPs were performed, of which only 57 met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 3.5 years old. We divided the patients into two groups, group A for 1 year or less, and Group B for children 1 year and older. 16 children presented with hydronephrosis on the right kidney, and 41 on the left. 47 children presented with intrinsic obstruction, and 10 were extrinsic due to an aberrant polar artery. Prenatal hydronephrosis was detected in the majority of patients. The remaining cases presented predominantly with abdominal pain and urinary tract infection. The total mean operative time was 171 min for Group A, and 190 min for Group B. None of the children required conversion to open surgery. There was one major complication in our cohort. Our success rate of 93% was similar to that of the current literature. Our retrospective study reported shorter operative times and less complications through laparoscopic approach in infants. We attribute the shorter operative times to initiating laparoscopic intervention in young children after surpassing the initial learning curve. We recommend prospective studies in comparing both age groups in order to assert the feasibility of this procedure in all ages.},
     year = {2022}
    }
    

    Copy | Download

  • TY  - JOUR
    T1  - Feasibility of Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children Since Infancy
    AU  - Sergio Landa Juarez
    AU  - Iris Saldana Sanchez
    AU  - Ileana Mendez Gamboa
    AU  - Carlos Garcia Hernandez
    Y1  - 2022/08/31
    PY  - 2022
    N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcu.20220602.13
    DO  - 10.11648/j.ijcu.20220602.13
    T2  - International Journal of Clinical Urology
    JF  - International Journal of Clinical Urology
    JO  - International Journal of Clinical Urology
    SP  - 76
    EP  - 83
    PB  - Science Publishing Group
    SN  - 2640-1355
    UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijcu.20220602.13
    AB  - Background: For children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction, minimally invasive techniques offer better results for patients, but the traditional laparoscopic approach continues to be a surgical challenge, especially in infants, for which the benefit of this approach as a first-line choice is still being discussed. A retrospective analysis was performed on patients diagnosed with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) treated by laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) from January 2014 to December 2019. The ages ranged from 3 months to 16 years; most patients had a primary obstruction, and only five had a previous pyeloplasty. Clinical success was defined as: the resolution of symptoms, diminished hydronephrosis on ultrasound, and improved excretion assessed through a nuclear renal scan. Throughout six years, 71 LPs were performed, of which only 57 met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 3.5 years old. We divided the patients into two groups, group A for 1 year or less, and Group B for children 1 year and older. 16 children presented with hydronephrosis on the right kidney, and 41 on the left. 47 children presented with intrinsic obstruction, and 10 were extrinsic due to an aberrant polar artery. Prenatal hydronephrosis was detected in the majority of patients. The remaining cases presented predominantly with abdominal pain and urinary tract infection. The total mean operative time was 171 min for Group A, and 190 min for Group B. None of the children required conversion to open surgery. There was one major complication in our cohort. Our success rate of 93% was similar to that of the current literature. Our retrospective study reported shorter operative times and less complications through laparoscopic approach in infants. We attribute the shorter operative times to initiating laparoscopic intervention in young children after surpassing the initial learning curve. We recommend prospective studies in comparing both age groups in order to assert the feasibility of this procedure in all ages.
    VL  - 6
    IS  - 2
    ER  - 

    Copy | Download

Author Information
  • Pediatric Urology Department, National Social Security Institute, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

  • Pediatric Urology Department, National Social Security Institute, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

  • Pediatric Urology Department, National Social Security Institute, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

  • Star Medica Private Children's Hospital, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

  • Sections