Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction.

OBJECTIVES: To compare open pyeloplasty with three minimally invasive modalities: antegrade endopyelotomy, Acucise endopyelotomy (Applied Medical, Laguna Hills, Calif), and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. METHODS: Forty-five adult patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction were managed by one of the above four techniques. Success rates, analgesic use, length of hospital stay, recovery time, and complications were compared between each of the four groups. RESULTS: Successful relief of obstruction was achieved in 100% of patients undergoing open and laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty, 78% undergoing Acucise endopyelotomy, and 77% undergoing antegrade percutaneous endopyelotomy. Acucise endopyelotomy results in shorter convalescence (1 week) than antegrade endopyelotomy (4.7 weeks), laparoscopic pyeloplasty (2.3 weeks) or open pyeloplasty (10.3 weeks). Complication rates appear to be similar among all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our limited data imply that Acucise endopyelotomy offers low morbidity with success rates comparable to antegrade pyeloplasty, whereas laparoscopic pyeloplasty is as effective as open pyeloplasty with diminished morbidity.

Duke Scholars

Author Glenn Michael Preminger Urology