Urology Annals
About UA | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionLogin 
Urology Annals
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 1064   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 183-187

Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty

Department of Urology, Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre, Kochi, Kerala, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Avinash T Siddaiah
Department of Urology, Lakeshore Hospital, Maradu, Nettoor P.O., Kochi - 682 040, Kerala
Login to access the Email id

DOI: 10.4103/0974-7796.150489

PMID: 25834982

Rights and Permissions

Objective: The aim was to analyze the operative, postoperative and functional outcome of laparoscopic management of previously failed pyeloplasty and to compare operative and postoperative outcome with laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Materials and Methods: All patients who underwent laparoscopic management for previously failed dismembered pyeloplasty were analyzed in this study. Detailed clinical and imaging evaluation was performed. Transperitoneal approach was followed to repair the recurrent UPJO. Operative, postoperative, and follow-up functional details were recorded. Operative and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty were compared with that of laparoscopic primary pyeloplasty. Results: A total of 16 patients were managed with laparoscopic approach for previously failed pyeloplasty. Primary surgical approach for dismembered pyeloplasty was open in 11, laparoscopy in four patients and robotic assisted in one patient. Fifteen were treated with redo pyeloplasty and one with ureterocalicostomy. Mean operative time was 191.25 ± 24.99 min, mean duration of hospital stay was 3.2 ± 0.45 days and mean follow-up duration was 29.9 ± 18.5 months with success rate of 93.3%. Operative time was significantly prolonged with redo pyeloplasty group compared with primary pyeloplasty group (191.25 ± 24.99 vs. 145 ± 22.89, P = 0.0001). Conclusion: Laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty is a viable option with a satisfactory outcome and less morbidity.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded404    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal