Premium
Patient selection before endopyelotomy: can it improve the outcome?
Author(s) -
Keeley F.X.,
Tolley D.A.,
Moussa S.A.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00897.x
Subject(s) - medicine , surgery , reconstructive surgery , hydronephrosis , ureter , ultrasonography , pyeloplasty , urinary system , endocrinology
Objective To compare endopyelotomy and primary reconstructive procedures in patients with pelvi‐ureteric junction (PUJ) obstruction and with risk factors for endopyelotomy failure. Patients and methods Nineteen patients (eight female and 11 male, mean age 34.5 years, range 15–82) underwent endoluminal ultrasonography (US) before treatment for PUJ obstruction; the US findings were used to direct the treatment. Patients with unavoidable crossing vessels, massive hydronephrosis and crossing vessels associated with previous failed endopyelotomy were selected for reconstructive surgery. The clinical results of these patients (group 1) were compared with 12 consecutive patients who had undergone endopyelotomy before the use of endoluminal ultrasonography (group 2). Results Imaging detected 17 crossing vessels in 13 of the 19 patients. Six patients underwent primary reconstructive surgery and 13 underwent endopyelotomy. The endoluminal US findings changed treatment in some way in nine patients. Endopyelotomy was successful in 12 of the 13 patients and reconstructive surgery successful in five of six patients. The success after endopyelotomy improved from eight in 12 patients in group 2 to 12 of 13 in group 1 ( P = 0.16, NS). Conclusions Endoluminal US can be used to select patients in whom endopyelotomy is likely to fail. Using primary reconstructive procedures in these patients might improve the overall outcome, but these preliminary findings need to be confirmed in a larger study.