The management of secondary pelvi‐ureteric junction obstruction – a comparison of pyeloplasty and endopyelotomy. (January 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vannahme, Milena; Mathur, Sunil; Davenport, Kim; Timoney, Anthony G.; Keeley, Francis X.
• Is Part Of: BJU international. Volume 113:Number 1(2014:Jan.)
• Page Start: 108
• Page End: 112
• Publication Date: 2014-01
• Subjects: secondary pelvi‐ureteric junction obstruction -- endopyelotomy -- pyeloplasty; Genitourinary organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Genitourinary organs -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1111/bju.12454
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1464-4096

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To review our experience in the management of secondary pelvi‐ureteric junction obstruction (PUJO) comparing endopyelotomy with pyeloplasty. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analysed our database of 58 patients having undergone operative management of PUJO after failed primary management, including 41 with failed pyeloplasty and 17 failed endopyelotomy. Outcomes included mercapto‐acetyltriglycine (MAG3) drainage capacity, symptomatic control and need for further intervention. Success was defined as freedom from failure in all three. Results: Patients undergoing secondary pyeloplasty had better outcomes than endopyelotomy for symptomatic success (87.5% vs 74%), resolution of obstruction on MAG3 renography (96% vs 74%), and no need for further intervention (96% vs 71%). Overall success was 87.5% for pyeloplasty compared with 44% after secondary endopyelotomy. Conclusion: Outcomes of pyelopasty for secondary PUJO were superior when compared with endopyelotomy.