Adult endopyelotomy: Impact of etiology and antegrade versus retrograde approach on outcome
Shalhav, A.L.; Giusti, G.; Elbahnasy, A.M.; Hoenig, D.M.; McDougall, E.M.; Smith, D.S.; Maxwell, K.L.; Clayman, R.V.
Journal of Urology 160(3 Pt 1): 685-689
1998
ISSN/ISBN: 0022-5347 PMID: 9720521 DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(01)62755-1
Accession: 008115115
Purpose: We evaluate our experience with endopyelotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction by stratifying the results of an antegrade versus a retrograde approach for primary, secondary, calculi related, high insertion and impaired renal function related obstruction, individually. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed results of 149 nonrandomized patients treated for ureteropelvic junction obstruction, of whom 83 underwent antegrade percutaneous endopyelotomy using a right angle Greenwald electrode and 66 underwent retrograde endopyelotomy using a cutting balloon device. Subjective results were based on an analog pain scale, objective results on renal scan, excretory urography or Whitaker test and cost-effectiveness analysis on total treatment cost. Results: In both primary and secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction, retrograde endopyelotomy was related to a significantly shorter operating room time and hospital stay (p<0.05). When treating noncalculous primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (92 patients) there was a better objective, albeit not statistically significant, success rate with antegrade endopyelotomy (89 versus 71%) but retrograde endopyelotomy was 20% more cost-effective. When treating secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (37 patients) there was a better objective, albeit not statistically significant, success rate (83 versus 77%) with retrograde endopyelotomy, which was 37% more cost-effective. Complication rates were higher with antegrade compared to retrograde endopyelotomy for primary and secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (25 versus 14% and 26 versus 0%). In 20 patients with concomitant stones endopyelotomy results were better (93 to 100% success) than for any other categories of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Of note, endopyelotomy also provided a reasonable outcome among patients with a high insertion primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (70% success). Conclusions: Antegrade endopyelotomy is the preferred approach in patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction and concomitant renal calculi (13.4% of cases), and may also be preferable in patients with high insertion obstruction (6.7%). For all other primary and all secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction, antegrade and retrograde endopyelotomy is effective therapy yet retrograde endopyelotomy results in less operating room time, shorter hospital stay, fewer complications and significantly less expense to achieve the desired outcome.