MORPHOFUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES OF LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY IN INFANTS OF THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF LIFE



Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Introduction. This study describes authors’ experience in performing laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants whose age does not exceed 3 months of life, and compares pre- and postoperative results of these surgeries in order to answer the question - does the laparoscopic technology for the treatment of hydronephrosis in newborns and infants provide acceptable results based on improving kidney morphology and function? Material and methods. 105 children, aged 3 months, were enrolled into this retrospective study who for 8 years, since 2012, have been laparoscopically operated on for congenital hydronephrosis. Because of bilateral renal damage, a total of 110 surgeries were performed, including simultaneous pyeloplasty in 5 patients. All patients had dismembered pyeloplasty with the Anderson-Hynes technique via transparietal laparoscopic access. Indications for surgery were: decreased renal function with obstruction signs of urine outflow from the pelvis confirmed by radioisotope renography; a combination of reduction of parenchyma thickness and increase of pelvis diameter at serial ultrasound studies; or a combination of these pathologies with urinary tract infection. During the trial, the following parameters were recorded: demographic data, findings of perioperative diagnostic examinations, surgical details, recovery process after surgery and long-term consequences. Results. The average age of patients was 50.24 days. Of 105 patients, 60 (57.14%) were less than 1 month old, and the remaining 45 (42.86%) were 1-3 months old. Gender distribution in groups was as follows: m / f = 73:32. Unilateral operations on the left kidney were in 61.82% patients, on the right kidney - in 33.64% patients. 4.54% patients had bilateral pyeloplasty. Average duration of surgery was 73.07 minutes (40-120 minutes). The average length of hospital stay was 4.19 days (2-9 days). At the early postoperative period, 4 (3.6%) patients developed postoperative complications - urinoma formation. A comparison of pre- and postoperative renal morphometry findings by ultrasound and Doppler ultrasound examination showed a significant decrease of renal pelvis dimensions and improved renal blood flow. The pelvis size decreased in average from 23.5 to 5.5 mm (p = 0.001), and RI from 0.72 to 0.64 (p = 0.001). Functioning of the operated kidney, as showed by the radioisotope renography, improved from 34 to 45.27 (p = 0.001). Long-term follow-up observation revealed one relapse of the disease (0.9%) - stenosis of pyeloureteral anastomosis which required a repeated laparoscopic pyeloplasty. One patient (0.9%)/ who was under follow-up observation for 36 months, had deterioration and loss of kidney function without signs of renal obstruction at the level of pyeloureteral segment which required laparoscopic nephrectomy. Thus, taking into account one relapse and loss of kidney function in one patient, we can state that the effectiveness of laparoscopic pyeloplasty in our study was 98.2%. Conclusion. Summarizing results of the applied laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the youngest group of patients whose age does not exceed 3 months of life, it can be stated that the minimally invasive approach contributes to normalizing morphological and functional parameters of kidney.

About the authors

Y. A. Kozlov

Ivano-Matreninskaya Children’s Clinical Hospital; Irkutsk State Medical Academy of Continuing Education; Irkutsk State Medical University Russia

Author for correspondence.
Email: yuriherz@hotmail.com
Россия

A. A. Rasputin

Ivano-Matreninskaya Children’s Clinical Hospital

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

P. A. Baradieva

Ivano-Matreninskaya Children’s Clinical Hospital

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

V. S. Cheremnov

Ivano-Matreninskaya Children’s Clinical Hospital

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

Ch. B. Ochirov

Ivano-Matreninskaya Children’s Clinical Hospital

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

K. A. Kovalkov

Kemerovo Clinical Pediatric Hospital

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

S. S. Poloyan

Center for Maternal and Child Welfare

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

D. M. Chubko

Center for Maternal and Child Welfare

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

V. M. Kapuller

Hadassah University Medical Center

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

References

  1. Wein A.J. Anomalies and surgery of the ureteropelvic junction in children. In: Carr MC and El-Ghoneimi A (eds) Campbell-Walsh urology. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders, 2007.
  2. Anderson J.C., Hynes W. Retrocaval ureter; a case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol. 1949; 21: 209-14. [PubMed: 18148283]
  3. Scardino P.T., Scardino P.L. Obstruction at the ureteropelvic junction. In: Bergman H. (ed.) The Ureter. Berlin: Springer, 1981; 697-716.
  4. Brooks J.D., Kavoussi L.R., Preminger G.M., Schuessler W.W., Moore R.G. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic unction. Urology. 1995; 46: 791-5.
  5. Зоркин С.Н., Губарев В.И., Сальников В.Ю., Филинов И.В., Петров Е,И., Маликов Ш.Г., Пономарчук И.Н. Эндоскопическая баллонная дилатация высокого давления как метод лечения обструкции лоханочно-мочеточникового сегмента у детей. Вестник урологии. 2017; 2: 5-11
  6. Tan H.L., Najmaldini A., Webb D., Endopyelotomy for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in children. Eur urol. 1993; 24: 84. doi: 10.1159/000474269
  7. Tan H.L., Roberts J.P., Grattan-Smith D. Retrograde ball dilation of ureteropelvic obstructions in infants and children: early results. Urology. 1995; 46: 89-91.
  8. Peters C.A., Schlussel R.N., Retik A.B. Pediatric laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol.1995; 153: 1962- 5.
  9. Каганцов И.М., Минин А.Е., Санников И.А. Лапароскопическая пиелопластика - современный стандарт лечения врожденного гидрофнероза у детей. Российский вестник детской хирургии, анестезиологии и реаниматологии. 2012; 2: 15-20.
  10. Врублевский C.Г., Гуревич А.И., Врублевская Е.Н., Аль-Машат Н.А., Шмыров О.С., Захаров А.И., Склярова Т.А., Королева О.В., Ефимова В.И. Эндохирургическая пиелопластика у детей как эволюция золотого стандарта. Детская хирургия. 2013; 6: 4-6.
  11. Tan, H.L., Roberts J.P. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children: preliminary results. Br J Urol. 1996; 77: 909, doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1996.01926.x
  12. Schier F.: Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty in children. Pediatr Surg Int.1998; 13: 497. doi: 10.1007/s003830050382
  13. Yeung C.K., Tam Y.H., Sihoe J.D., Lee K.H., Liu K.W. Retroperitoneoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in infants and children. BJU Int. 2001; 87: 509-13. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00129.x
  14. El-Ghoneimi A., Farhat W., Bolduc S., Bagli D., McLorie G., Aigrain Y., Khoury A. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty by a retroperitoneal approach in children. BJU Int. 2003; 92: 104-8; discussion 108. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410X.2003.04266.x
  15. Casale P., Grady R.W., Joyner B.D., Zeltser I.S., Figueroa T.E., Mitchell M.E. Comparison of dismembered and nondismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient. J Endourol. 2004; 18: 875. doi: 10.1089/end.2004.18.875
  16. Metzelder M.L., Schier F., Petersen C., Truss M., Ure B.M. Laparoscopic transabdominal pyeloplasty in children is feasible irrespective of age. J Urol. 2006; 175: 688-91. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00179-5
  17. Бондаренко С.Г., Абрамов Г.Г. Лапароскопическая пиелопластика у детей. Детская хирургия. 2013; 6: 7-10
  18. Szavay P.O., Luithle T., Seitz G., Warmann S.W., Haber P., Fuchs J. Functional outcome after laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children. J Pediatr Urol. 2010; 6(4): 359e63. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2009.10.015
  19. Simforoosh N., Abedi A., Sharifi S., Zamany P., Rezaeetalab G., Obayd K,, Soltani M., Comparison of surgical outcomes and cosmetic results between standard and mini laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children younger than 1 year of age. J Pediatr Urol. 2014 Oct; 10(5): 819-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.01.026. Epub 2014 Feb 22. PubMed PMID: 24613142.
  20. Chandrasekharam V. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants: single-surgeon experience. J Pediatr Urol.2015: 11: 272.e1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2015.05.013
  21. Erol İ., Karamık K., İslamoğlu M., Ateş M., Savaş M. Outcomes of infants undergoing laparoscopic pyeloplasty: A single-center experience. Urologia. 2019 Feb; 86(1): 27-31. doi: 10.1177/0391560318802165. Epub 2018 Sep 25. PubMed PMID: 30253705
  22. Masieri L., Sforza S., Cini C., Escolino M., Grosso A., Esposito C., Minervini A., Carini M. Minilaparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty in Children Less Than 1 Year. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019 Jul; 29(7): 970-5. doi: 10.1089/lap.2018.0586. Epub 2019 Jun 18. PubMed PMID: 31211649.
  23. Snykers Z.C., De Plaen E., Vermersch S., Lopez M., Khelif K., Luyckx S., Philippe P., Varlet F., Steyaert H. Is Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Infants Under 1 Year of Age a Good Option? Front Pediatr. 2019 Sep 25; 7: 352. doi: 10.3389/fped.2019.00352. eCollection 2019. PubMed PMID: 31608264; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6773808
  24. Schuessler W.W., Grune M.T., Tecuanhuey L.V., Preminger G.M. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993 Dec; 150: 1795-9. PubMed PMID: 8230507. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35898-6
  25. Kavoussi L.R., Peters C.A. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993 Dec; 150: 1891-4. PubMed PMID: 8230528. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35926-8
  26. Laydner H.K., Pedrosa J.A., Khanna R., Isac W., Stein R.J. LESS pyeloplasty and other reconstructive procedures. Arch Esp Uro.l 2012; 65: 329e35.
  27. Neheman A., Kord E., Zisman A., Darawsha A.E., Noh P.H. Comparison of robotic pyeloplasty and standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants: a bi-institutional study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018; 28: 467-470. doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0262.
  28. Shoma A.M., El Nahas A.R., Bazeed M.A. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: A prospective randomized comparison between the transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneoscopy. J Urol. 2007; 178: 2020-4; discussion 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.07.025
  29. Giri S.K., Murphy D., Costello A.J., Moon D.A. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty outcomes of elderly patients. J Endourol. 2011; 25: 251-6. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0384
  30. Lallas C.D., Pak R.W., Pagnani C., Hubosky S.G., Yanke B.V., Keeley F.X., Bagley D.H. The minimally invasive management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in horseshoe kidneys. World J Urol. 2011; 29: 91-5. doi: 10.1007/s00345-010-0523-9.
  31. Krajewski W., Wojciechowska J., Dembowski J., Zdrojowy R., Szydełko T. Hydronephrosis in the course of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: An underestimated problem? Current opinions on the pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2017; 26: 857-64. doi: 10.17219/acem/59509
  32. Autorino R., Eden C., El-Ghoneimi A., Guazzoni G., Buffi N., Peters C.A., Stein R.J., Gettman M. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2014; 65: 430-52. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.06.053.
  33. Zhang X., Li H.Z., Ma X., Zheng T., Lang B., Zhang J., Fu B., Xu K., Guo X.L. Retrospective comparison of retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol. 2006; 176: 1077-80.
  34. 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. J Endourol. 2011; 25: 727-36. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0544
  35. Gatti J.M., Amstutz S.P., Bowlin P.R., Stephany H.A., Murphy J.P. Laparoscopic vs. open pyeloplasty in children: results of a randomized, prospective, controlled trial. J Urol. 2017; 197(3 Pt 1): 792-7. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.10.056
  36. Tan H.L. Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children. J Urol. 1999; 162: 1045e7.
  37. Herndon C.D., Herbst K., Smith C. The transition from open to laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty: a single-surgeon experience. J Pediatr Urol. 2013 Aug; 9: 409-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.06.009. Epub 2012 Jul 15. PubMed. PMID: 22796268.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2020

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies