MINIMALLY INVASIVE TREATMENT OF OBSTRUCTIONS OF THE PYELOURETERAL SEGMENT IN NEONATES AND INFANTS. STATE OF THE ART



Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Introduction. The obstruction of pyeloureteral junction is the most common cause of hydronephrosis in neonates and infants. Indications for surgical treatment include: decrease in differentiated renal function less than 40%, continued decrease in differentiated renal function for more than 10% in subsequent examinations, poor excretory function at diuretic renography (T ½ more than 20 min), increase in the anteroposterior diameter of the pelvis over 20 mm or dilatation of degrees III and IV by the classification of the Society of Fetal Urology (SFU). Material and methods. Treatment options for this condition include a wide range of approaches - from active observation to minimally invasive methods, including laparoscopic or robotic pyeloplasty. The main goal of treatment is to alleviate symptoms as well as to improve and / or to maintain renal function. The most common technique for removing obstruction of the pyeloureteral junction is dismembered pyeloplasty which is also called Anderson-Hynes operation. The Anderson-Hynes laparoscopic pyeloplasty is not widely spread what reflects the complex nature of this surgery in newborns and infants. A surgical access aiming to provide a minimally invasive correction of the obstruction in the pelvic-ureteric junction can be achieved equally by laparoscopic pyeloplasty, retroperitoneoscopicpyeloplasty and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Results. Currently, there is a limited number of reports on the application of laparoscopic techniques for treating pyeloureteral segment obstructions in newborns and infants. The reasonability of such an approach in children under one year of age remains a matter of debate. It has been found out that postoperative results after laparoscopy are similar to those after a conventional open intervention. Conclusion. This literature review demonstrates that a surgeon - before performing reconstructive operations on infant’s kidneys must have a good experience in many other advanced laparoscopic procedures with endosurgical suturing . Laparoscopy offers many more benefits than simply reducing the patient’s hospital stay or less drug use. The magnification inherent to high-definition (HD) or ultra-high-resolution television (UHD or 4K) technology makes these surgical interventions more accurate due to better visualization of such microobjects and their layers at the baby’s ureter, which has a diameter slightly exceeding 2 mm. Another advantage of laparoscopy lies in more adequate assessment of the situation in case of hydronephrosis than that in the open surgery.

About the authors

Y. A. Kozlov

Irkutsk Municipal Pediatric 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

Irkutsk Municipal Pediatric Clinical Hospital

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

K. A. Kovalkov

Kemerovo Clinical Pediatric Hospital No 5

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

P. Zh. Baradieva

Irkutsk Municipal Pediatric Clinical Hospital

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

Ch. B. Ochirov

Irkutsk Municipal Pediatric Clinical Hospital

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

S. S. Poloyan

Center for Maternal and Child Welfare

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

V. M. Kapuller

Hadassah University Medical Center

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

I. M. Kagantsov

Pitirim Sorokin Syktyvkar State University

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

E. .. Minevich

Department of Pediatric Urology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Россия

References

  1. 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.
  2. Fernbach S.K., Maizels M., Conway J.J. Ultrasound grading of hydronephrosis: introduction to the system used by the Society for Fetal Urology. Pediatr Radiol. 1993;23:478-80.
  3. Klahr S, Morrissey J. Obstructive nephropathy and renal fibrosis. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2002;283:F861-75.
  4. Szydelko T, Tuchendler T, Litarski A, Urbanczyk G, Apoznanski W, Janczak D. Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes procedure as a treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction caused by fibroepithelial polyp. Wideochir Inne Tech Malo Inwazyjne. 2013;8:361-3.
  5. Pan P, Sachdeva N. Immunohistochemistry and morphometric analysis of pelviureteric junction complexes in children with hydronephrosis. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2019;62:49-53.
  6. Gee F.W., Kiviat M.D. Ureteral response to partial obstruction - Smooth muscle hyperplasia and connective tissue proliferation. Invest Urol. 1975; 12: 309.
  7. Starr N.T., Maizels M., Chou P., Brannigan R., Shapiro E. Microanatomy and morphometry of the hydronephrotic “obstructed” renal pelvis in asymptomatic infants. J Urol. 1992;148:519-24.
  8. Cheng E.Y., Maizels M. Chou P., Hartanto V., Shapiro E. Response of the newborn ureteropelvic junction complex to induced and later reversed partial ureteral obstruction in the rabbit model. J Urol. 1993;150:782-9.
  9. Knerr I., Dittrich K., Miller J., et al. Alteration of neuronal and endothelial nitric oxide synthase and neuropeptide Y in congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urol Res. 2001;29:134-40.
  10. Subramaniam R., Lama T., Chong C.Y. Pelviureteric junction obstruction as sequelae of Kawasaki disease. Pediatr Surg Int. 2004;20: 553-5.
  11. Mitterberger M., Pinggera G.M., Neururer R., et al. Comparison of contrast-enhanced color Doppler imaging (CDI), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of crossing vessels in patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Eur Urol. 2008;53:1254-60.
  12. Garcia-Peña B.M., Keller M.S., Schwartz D.S., Korsvik H.E., Weiss R.M. The ultrasonographic differentiation of obstructive versus nonobstructive hydronephrosis in children: a multivariate scoring system. J Urol. 1997;158:560-5.
  13. Ramaswamy K., Marien T., Mass A., Stifelman M., Shah O. Simplified approach to estimating renal function based on computerized tomography. Can J Urol. 2013;20:6833-9.
  14. O’Reilly P., Aurell M., Britton K., Kletter K., Rosenthal L., Testa T. Consensus on diuresis renography for investigating the dilated upper urinary tract. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:1872-6.
  15. Conway J.J., Maizels M. The «well tempered» diuretic renogram: a standard method to examine the asymptomatic neonate with hydronephrosis or hydroureteronephrosis. A report from combined meetings of The Society for Fetal Urology and members of The Pediatric Nuclear Medicine Council-The Society of Nuclear Medicine. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:2047-51.
  16. Lam W., Fernando A., Issa R., et al. Is routine postoperative diuresis renography indicated in all adult patients after pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction? Urology. 2015;85(1):246-51.
  17. Erol İ., Karamık K., İslamoğlu M., Ateş M., Savaş M. Outcomes of infants undergoing laparoscopic pyeloplasty: A single-center experience. Urologia. 2019;86:27-31.
  18. Almodhen F., Jednak R., Capolicchio J.P., Eassa W., Brzezinski A., El-Sherbiny M. Is routine renography required after pyeloplasty? J Urol. 2010; 184: 1128e31.
  19. Cost N.G., Prieto J.C., Wilcox D.T. Screening ultrasound in follow up after pediatric pyeloplasty. Urology. 2010; 76: 175e80.
  20. Johnston R.B., Porter C. The Whitaker test. Urology journal. 2014; 11:1727-30.
  21. Shokeir A.A. Role of urinary biomarkers in the diagnosis of congenital upper urinary tract obstruction. Indian J Urol. 2008;24:313-9.
  22. https://uroweb.org/guideline/paediatric-urology/#30
  23. https://www.ooorou.ru/public/uploads/ROU/Files/КР19%20Гидронефроз.pdf
  24. Chandrasekharam V. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants: single-surgeon experience. J Pediatr Urol. 2015: 11: 272.e1-5.
  25. 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;197:792-7.
  26. 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;10:819-23.
  27. Rathod K.J., Samujh R., Agarwal S., Kanojia R.P., Sharma U., Prasad R. Hydronephrosis due to pelviureteric junction narrowing: Utility of urinary enzymes to predict the need for surgical management and follow-up. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2012;17:1-5.
  28. Ramsay J.W., Miller R.A., Kellett M.J., Blackford H.N., Wickham J.E., Whitfield H.N. Percutaneous pyelolysis: indications, complications and results. Br J Urol. 1984 Dec;56(6):586-8.
  29. Manikandan R., Saad A., Bhatt R.I., Neilson D. Minimally invasive surgery for pelviureteral junction obstruction in adults: A critical review of the options. Urology. 2005;65:422-432
  30. Biyani C.S., Minhas S., el Cast J., Almond D.J., Cooksey G., Hetherington J.W. The role of Acucise endopyelotomy in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol. 2002; 41:305-10; discussion 310-01.
  31. 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
  32. Parente A., Angulo L., Romero R., Rivas S., Burgos L., Tardaguila A. Management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction with high-pressure balloon dilatation: long-term outcome in 50 children under 18 months of age. Urology. 2013;82:1138-43.
  33. Xu N., Chen S., Xue X., Zheng Q., Wei Y., Jiang T., Li X., Huang J., Cai H. Comparison of Retrograde Balloon Dilatation and Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty for Treatment of Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Results of a 2-Year Follow-Up. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0152463.
  34. 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.
  35. Szydelko T., Kasprzak J., Lewandowski J., Apoznanski W., Dembowski J. Dismembered laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty versus nondismembered laparoscopic Y-V pyeloplasty in the treatment of patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A prospective study. Journal of Endourology/Endourological Society. 2012;26:1165-70.
  36. Polok M., Chrzan R., Veenboer P., et al. Nondismembered pyeloplasty in a pediatric population: Results of 34 open and laparoscopic procedures. Urology. 2011;78:891-4.
  37. 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;6:359e63.
  38. Коварский С.Г., Захаров А.И., Соттаева З.З., Текотова А.Н., Склярова Т.А., Агеева Н.А., Галибин И.Е., Струянский К.А, Смолянкин А.А. Вазопексия при гидронефрозе у детей. Российский вестник детской хирургии, анестезиологии и реаниматологии. 2016; 4: 175-7
  39. Schuessler W.W., Grune M.T., Tecuanhuey L.V., Preminger G.M. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1795-9.
  40. Kavoussi L.R., Peters C.A. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993; 150: 1891-4.
  41. Peters C.A., Schlussel R.N., Retik A.B. Pediatric laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1995; 153: 1962-5.
  42. 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.
  43. 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
  44. 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.
  45. Giri S.K., Murphy D., Costello A.J., Moon D.A. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty outcomes of elderly patients. J Endourol. 2011;25:251-6.
  46. Бондаренко С.Г., Абрамов Г.Г. Лапароскопическая пиелопластика у детей грудного возраста. Детская хирургия. 2013; 6: 7-10
  47. Lallas C.D., Pak R.W., Pagnani C., et al. The minimally invasive management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in horseshoe kidneys. World J Urol. 2011;29:91-5.
  48. Autorino R., Eden C., El-Ghoneimi A., et al. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2014;65:430-52.
  49. Врублевский С.Г., Шмыров О.С., Врублевская Е.Н., Лазишвили М.Н., Кулаев А.В., Корочкин М.В., Врублевский А.С. Лапароскопическая пиелопластика у детей: техника, дренирование, осложнения. Детская хирургия. 2017; 21: 299-302
  50. Zhang X., Li H.Z., Ma X., et al. Retrospective comparison of retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol. 2006;176:1077-80.
  51. 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.
  52. Menon P., Rao K.L., Bhattacharya A., et al. Outcome analysis of pediatric pyeloplasty in units with less than 20% differential renal function. J Pediatr Urol. 2016; 12: 171.e1-171.e7.
  53. Tan H.L., Roberts J.P. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children: preliminary results. Br J Urol. 1996;77:909.
  54. Schier F.: Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty in children. Pediatr Surg Int, 13: 497, 1998
  55. Tan H.L. Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children. J Urol. 1999; 162: 1045e7.
  56. 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.
  57. El-Ghoneimi A., Farhat W., Bolduc S., Bagli D., McLorie G., Aigrain Y., et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty by a retroperitoneal approach in children. BJU Int. 2003;92:104-8; discussion 108.
  58. Casale P., Grady R.W., Joyner B.D., Zeltser I.S., Figueroa T.E. and Mitchell M.E.: Comparison of dismembered and nondismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient. J Endourol. 2004;18: 875.
  59. Bonnard A., Fouquet V., Carricaburu E., Aigrain Y., El-Ghoneimi A. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. J Urol. 2005;173:1710e3. Discussion 1713.
  60. Piaggio L.A., Franc-Gumond J., Noh P.H., Wehry M., Figueroa T.E., Barthold J., Gonzales R. Transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in infants and children: comparison with open surgery. J. 2007;178:1579- 83.
  61. Penn H.A., Gatti J.M., Hoestje S.M., DeMarco R.T., Snyder C.L., Murphy J.P. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children: preliminary report of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol.2010; 184: 690e5.
  62. Cascio S., Tien A., Chee W., Tan H.L. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children younger than 2 years. J Urol. 2007;177:335-8.
  63. Ciftci H., Akın Y., Savaş M., et al. Functional results of laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: single institute experience in long term. Urol Int. 2016; 97 (2): 148-52.
  64. Kovarsky S.L., Vrublevsky S.G., al-Mashat N.A., Zakharov A.I., Shmyrov O.S. the First experience of laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children with hydronephrosis. Rossiyskiy vestnik detskoy khirurgii, anesteziologoo I reanimatologii. 2011; 2:102-6. (in Russian).
  65. Laydner H.K., Pedrosa J.A., Khanna R., Isac W., Stein R.J. LESS pyeloplasty and other reconstructive procedures. Arch Esp. 2012;65:329e35.
  66. Liu D., Zhou H., Ma L., Xie H., Tao T., Cao H., et al. Transumbilical multi-port laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus transumbilical single-site laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a retrospectively comparative study. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13:618.e1-5.
  67. Uberoi J., Disick G.I., Munver R. Minimally invasive surgical management of pelvic-ureteric junction obstruction: Update on the current status of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 2009;104: 1722-9.
  68. Yu H.Y., Hevelone N.D., Lipsitz S.R., Kowalczyk K.J., Hu J.C. Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J Urol. 2012;187:1392e8.
  69. Lucas S.M., Sundaram C.P., Wolf Jr. J.S., Leveillee R.J., Bird V.G., Aziz M., et al. Factors that impact the outcome of minimally invasive pyeloplasty: results of the multi-institutional laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty collaborative group. J Urol. 2012;187:522e7.
  70. Chang S.J., Hsu C.K., Hsieh C.H., Yang S.S. Comparing the efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted versus open pyeloplasty in children: A systemic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2015; 33(11): 1855-65.
  71. Neheman A., Kord E., Zisman A., et al. Comparison of robotic pyeloplasty and standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants: a bi-institutional study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018; 28 (4): 467-70.
  72. Avery D.I., Herbst K.W., Lendvay T.S., Noh P.H., Dangle P., Gundeti M.S., et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Multi-institutional experience in infants. J Pediatr Urol. 2015; 11: 139, e1-5.
  73. Sutherland R.W., Chung S.K., Roth D.R., Gonzales E.T. Pediatric pyeloplasty: outcome analysis based on patient age and surgical technique. Urology. 1997; 50: 963e6.
  74. Capello S.A., Kogan B.A., Giorgi L.A., Kaufman R.P. Prenatal ultrasound has led to earlier detection and repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol. 2005; 174: 1425e8.
  75. Lindgren B.W., Hagerty J., Meyer T., Cheng E.Y. Robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair for failed pyeloplasty in children: a safe and highly effective treatment option. J Urol. 2012;188:932e7.
  76. Tsai Y.C., Lin V.C., Chung S.D., Ho C.H., Jaw F.S., Tai H.C. Ergonomic and geometric tricks of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) by using conventional laparoscopic instruments. Surg Endosc. 2012; 26: 2671e7.
  77. Pini G., Porpiglia F., Micali S., Rassweiler J. Minilaparoscopy, needlescopy and microlaparoscopy: decreasing invasiveness, maintaining the standard laparoscopic approach. Arch Esp Uro.l 2012;65:366e83..
  78. Kutikov A., Resnick M., Casale P. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the infant younger than 6 months is it technically possible? J Urol. 2006; 175: 1477e9.
  79. Fuchs J., Luithle T., Warmann S.W., Haber P., Blumenstock G., Szavay P. Laparoscopic surgery on upper urinary tract in children younger than 1 year: technical aspects and functional outcome. J Urol. 2009; 182: 1561e8.
  80. Neheman A., Noh P.H., Piaggio L., Gonzalez R. The role of laparoscopic surgery for urinary tract reconstruction in infants weighing less than 10 kg: a comparison with open surgery. J.Pediatr Urol. 2008; 4: 192e6.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2020

This website uses cookies

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

About Cookies