Comparison of resection and pyelotomic techniques for treating the recurrent pyeloureteral segment in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Introduction. The lack of unified therapeutic and diagnostic protocol for managing children with relapsed obstruction of the pyeloureteral segment after ureteropyeloplasty has stimulated us to make a systematic review with meta-analysis on publications that studied indications and effectiveness of resection and endopyelotomic techniques.

Material and methods. Primary selection found 276 and 1470 sources in PubMed and Google Scholar database. After reviewing them, five publications were taken for the analysis. The design of the articles was consistent with cohort studies.

Results. The total number of patients with recurrent hydronephrosis was 156. All patients included in the review were children aged from 0 to 18 years. The present trial compared the effectiveness of resection and endopyelotomic techniques in treating recurrent hydronephrosis in children. When evaluating fixed effects in the model, the resection techniques showed a statistically significant increase in the weighted average risk of favorable outcomes by 68% (p = 0.001). The average follow-up period of patients after endopyelotomies was 36.6 months, and after resection pyeloplasty – 45.3 months. While analyzing complications, the majority of them predominated in the resection techniques. However, while performing the meta-analysis, this parameter turned out to be statistically insignificant (p = 0.55).

Conclusion. The results obtained emphasize high effectiveness of resection techniques as a method for treating recurrent hydronephrosis in children; however, due to high heterogeneity of studies and due to the risk of publication bias, this systematic review requires inclusion of more studies with detailed characteristics of patients and static justification of curative modalities.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Aysel F. Petrova

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

Email: aysel1494@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4367-7153

department of pediatric surgery, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

Россия, 117997 Moscow

S. L. Kovarskiy

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University; Filatov Children’s Municipal Hospital

Email: aysel1494@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6310-7110

Кафедра детской хирургии имени академика Ю.Ф. Исакова

Россия, 117997 Moscow; 103001 Moscow

A. V. Petrov

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: aysel1494@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0001-4368-4022

Кафедра детской хирургии имени академика Ю.Ф. Исакова 

Россия, 117997 Moscow

References

  1. Abdel-Karim A.M., 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; 12(6): 401.e1–401.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.06.010
  2. Abdrabuh A.M., Salih E.M., Aboelnasr M., et al. Endopyelotomy versus redo pyeoloplasty for management of failed pyeloplasty in children: A single center experience. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2018; 53(1): 2250–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2018.06.002
  3. Abraham G.P., Siddaiah A.T., Ramaswami K., et al. Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty. Urology Annals. 2015; 7(2): 183–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.150489
  4. Atug F., Woods M., Burgess S.V., Castle E.P., Thomas R. Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. J Urol. 2005; 174(4 Pt 1): 1440–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000173131.64558.c9
  5. Badlani G., Eshghi M., Smith A.D. Percutaneous surgery for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (endopyelotomy): Technique and early results. Journal of Urology. 1986; 135(1): 26–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)45503-0
  6. Basiri A., Behjati S., Zand S., Moghaddam S.M.H. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction after failed open surgery. Journal of Endourology. 2007; 21(9): 1045–51. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2006.0414
  7. Boylu U., Thomas R. Retrograde Ureteroscopic Endopyelotomy for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction. Smith’s Textbook of Endourology: 3rd Edition. Wiley-Blackwell, 2012; (1): 453–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444345148.CH42
  8. Braga L.H.P., Lorenzo A.J., Skeldon S., et al. Failed pyeloplasty in children: comparative analysis of retrograde endopyelotomy versus redo pyeloplasty. Journal of Urology. 2007; 178(6): 2571–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.050
  9. Ceyhan E., Dogan H.S., Tekgul S. Our experience on management of failed pediatric pyeloplasty. Pediatric Surgery International. 2020; 36(8): 971–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00383-020-04699-9
  10. Davis T.D., Burns A.S., Corbett S.T., Peters C.A. Reoperative robotic pyeloplasty in children. Journal of Pediatric Urology. 2016; 12(6): 394.e1–394.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.04.045
  11. Grazia E., Nicolosi D. Di Ureteroscopic laser endopyelotomy in secondary UPJ obstruction after pyeloplasty failure. Urologia Internationalis. 2005; 75(4): 333–6. https://doi.org/10.1159/000089169
  12. Dy G.W., Hsi R.S., Holt S.K., et al. National trends in secondary procedures following pediatric pyeloplasty. Journal of Urology. 2016; 195(4): 1209–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.11.010
  13. Faerber G.J., Ritchey M.L., Bloom D.A. Percutaneous endopyelotomy in infants and young children after failed open pyeloplasty. The Journal of Urology. 1995; 154(4): 1495–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)66912-X
  14. Figenshau R.S., Clayman R.V. Endourologic options for management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in the pediatric patient. Urologic Clinics of North America. 1998; 25(2): 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70008-2
  15. Helmy T.E., Sarhan O.M., Hafez A.T., et al. Surgical management of failed pyeloplasty in children: Single-center experience. Journal of Pediatric Urology. 2009; 5(2): 87–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2008.09.001
  16. Hoenig D.M., Shalhav A.L., Elbahnasy A.M., et al. Impact of etiology of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction on outcome of endopyelotomy. Journal of Endourology. 1998; 12(2): 131–3. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1998.12.131
  17. Hsi R.S., Holt S.K., Gore J.L., et al. National trends in followup imaging after pyeloplasty in children in the United States. Journal of Urology. 2015; 194(3): 777–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.03.123
  18. Jabbour M.E., Goldfischer E.R., Anderson A.E., et al. Failed endopyelotomy: Low expression of TGFβ regardless of the presence or absence of crossing vessels. Journal of Endourology. 1999; 13(4): 295–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1999.13.295
  19. Leung L., Chan I.H.Y., Chung P.H.Y., et al. Outcomes of re-intervention for laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty in children. Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques. 2016; 26(4): 318–23. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2015.0095
  20. Lindgren B.W., Hagerty J., Meyer T., et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair for failed pyeloplasty in children: A safe and highly effective treatment option. Journal of Urology. 2012; 188(3): 932–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.04.118
  21. Lim D.J., Walker R.D. Management of the failed pyeloplasty. The Journal of urology. 1996; 156(2 Pt 2): 738–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005392-199608001-00048
  22. Netto N.R., Ikari O., Esteves S.C., et al. Antegrade endopyelotomy for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in children. British Journal of Urology. 1996; 78(4): 607–12. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1996.16419.x
  23. Parente A., Angulo J.M., Burgos L., et al. Percutaneous endopyelotomy over high pressure balloon for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Journal of Urology. 2015; 194(1): 184–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.074
  24. Park J., Kim W.S., Hong B., et al. Long-term outcome of secondary endopyelotomy after failed primary intervention for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. International Journal of Urology. 2008; 5(6): 490–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.02035.x
  25. Passerotti C.C., Nguyen H.T., Eisner B.H., Lee R.S., Peters C.A. Laparoscopic reoperative pediatric pyeloplasty with robotic assistance. J Endourol. 2007; 21(10): 1137–40. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.9929
  26. Patel T., Kellner C.P., Katsumi H., Gupta M. Efficacy of endopyelotomy in patients with secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Endourol. 2011; 25(4): 587–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0026
  27. Persky L., McDougal W.S., Kedia K. Management of initial pyeloplasty failure. Journal of Urology. 1981; 125(5): 695–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)55166-6
  28. Reis L.O., Ikari O., Zani E.L., et al. Long-term results of anderson-hynes pyeloplasty in children: How long follow-up is necessary? European Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2014; 25(6): 509–12. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1390018
  29. Romao R.L.P., Koyle M.A., Pippi Salle J.L., et al. Failed pyeloplasty in children: Revisiting the unknown. Urology. 2013; 82(5): 1145–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.049
  30. Seo I.Y., Oh T.H., Lee J.W. Long-term follow-up results of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Korean Journal of Urology. 2014; 55(10): 656–9. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2014.55.10.656
  31. Sergi F., Flammia G.P., Alcini A., et al. Collagen changes in the ureteropelvic junction after failed antegrade endopyelotomy. Journal of Endourology. 2007; 21(1): 103–7. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2006.9996
  32. Shapiro E.Y., Cho J.S., Srinivasan A., et al. Long-Term Follow-Up for Salvage Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty After Failed Open Pyeloplasty. Urology. 2009; 73(1): 115–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.08.483
  33. Thomas J.C., DeMarco R.T., Donohoe J.M., et al. Management of the failed pyeloplasty: A contemporary review. Journal of Urology. 2005; 174(6): 2363–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000180420.11915.31
  34. Varkarakis I.M., Bhayani S.B., Allaf M.E., et al. Management of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction after failed primary laparoscopic pyeloplasty. The Journal of urology. 2004; 172(1): 180–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000132142.25717.08
  35. Veenboer P.W., Chrzan R., Dik P., et al. Secondary endoscopic pyelotomy in children with failed pyeloplasty. Urology. 2011; 77(6): 1450–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.10.021
  36. Dy G.W., Hsi R.S., Holt S.K., et al. National trends in secondary procedures following pediatric pyeloplasty. Journal of Urology. 2016; 195(4): 1209–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.11.010
  37. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7): e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  38. Moons K.G., Hooft L., Williams K., et al. Implementing systematic reviews of prognosis studies in Cochrane. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 10: ED000129. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000129
  39. Davis D.M., Strong G.H., Drake W.M. Intubated ureterotomy; experimental work and clinical results. J Urol. 1948; 59(5): 851–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)69449-7

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Algorithm for publication selection.

Download (788KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. Results of meta-analysis as the percentage success in groups of endopyelotomies and secondary pyeloplastics.

Download (102KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 3. Results of meta-analysis as the percentage of overall success of all repeated interventions in groups of endopyelotomies and secondary pyeloplastics.

Download (115KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 4. Results of meta-analysis as the percentage of parameter of complications in groups of endopyelotomies and secondary pyeloplasty.

Download (96KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2023 Petrova A.F., Kovarskiy S.L., Petrov A.V.

This website uses cookies

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

About Cookies