Cargando…

Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Propensity score matched analyses of a high-volume center

PURPOSE: Review the experience of redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RLP) in patients with recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in comparison to primary laparoscopic pyeloplasty (PLP) and redo open pyeloplasty (ROP), and determine the feasibility and effectiveness of RLP for recurrent UPJ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Jiayi, Yang, Yang, Li, Zonghan, Fan, Songqiao, Wang, Xinyu, Yang, Zhenzhen, Liu, Pei, Song, Hongcheng, Zhang, Weiping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9497869/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36160807
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.997196
_version_ 1784794613943369728
author Li, Jiayi
Yang, Yang
Li, Zonghan
Fan, Songqiao
Wang, Xinyu
Yang, Zhenzhen
Liu, Pei
Song, Hongcheng
Zhang, Weiping
author_facet Li, Jiayi
Yang, Yang
Li, Zonghan
Fan, Songqiao
Wang, Xinyu
Yang, Zhenzhen
Liu, Pei
Song, Hongcheng
Zhang, Weiping
author_sort Li, Jiayi
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Review the experience of redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RLP) in patients with recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in comparison to primary laparoscopic pyeloplasty (PLP) and redo open pyeloplasty (ROP), and determine the feasibility and effectiveness of RLP for recurrent UPJO in children. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients treated with transperitoneal PLP, RLP, and ROP for UPJO from December 2015 to December 2022. The Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance confounding variables. RLP patients were 1:4 matched with PLP and 1:3 matched with ROP. The primary outcomes were failure and post-operative complications. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo grading system. RESULTS: The study included ten patients who underwent RLP, 43 patients who underwent ROP, and 412 patients who underwent PLP. The follow-up time ranged from 6 to 36 months in the RLP group, 12 to 60 months in the PLP group, and 24 to 54 months in the ROP group. In the RLP group, no failure but three post-operative complications (Clavien grade II) were observed during the follow-up. Compared with the PLP group, the older age, higher weight, larger pre-operative anteroposterior diameter (APD) and APD/cortical thickness (P/C ratio), longer operation time, and post-operative length of stay (LOS) in the RLP group (P < 0.05). After PSM, longer operation time and post-operative LOS were observed in the RLP group (P < 0.05). Compared with the ROP group, the older age, higher weight, and longer post-operative LOS in the RLP group (P < 0.05). After PSM, longer post-operative LOS was observed in the ROP group (P < 0.05). The failure and complication rates were comparable between RLP and PLP or RLP and ROP (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our result demonstrated that RLP performed as well as PLP except for a longer operation time. Compared with ROP, RLP has the advantages of a clearer surgical view, sufficient exposure, clearer anatomical landmark position, and minor trauma with a comparable clinical outcome. On experienced hands, RLP for recurrent UPJO after is a safe and effective procedure and should be considered an excellent alternative to the more commonly recommended ROP in select patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9497869
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94978692022-09-23 Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Propensity score matched analyses of a high-volume center Li, Jiayi Yang, Yang Li, Zonghan Fan, Songqiao Wang, Xinyu Yang, Zhenzhen Liu, Pei Song, Hongcheng Zhang, Weiping Front Pediatr Pediatrics PURPOSE: Review the experience of redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RLP) in patients with recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in comparison to primary laparoscopic pyeloplasty (PLP) and redo open pyeloplasty (ROP), and determine the feasibility and effectiveness of RLP for recurrent UPJO in children. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients treated with transperitoneal PLP, RLP, and ROP for UPJO from December 2015 to December 2022. The Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance confounding variables. RLP patients were 1:4 matched with PLP and 1:3 matched with ROP. The primary outcomes were failure and post-operative complications. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo grading system. RESULTS: The study included ten patients who underwent RLP, 43 patients who underwent ROP, and 412 patients who underwent PLP. The follow-up time ranged from 6 to 36 months in the RLP group, 12 to 60 months in the PLP group, and 24 to 54 months in the ROP group. In the RLP group, no failure but three post-operative complications (Clavien grade II) were observed during the follow-up. Compared with the PLP group, the older age, higher weight, larger pre-operative anteroposterior diameter (APD) and APD/cortical thickness (P/C ratio), longer operation time, and post-operative length of stay (LOS) in the RLP group (P < 0.05). After PSM, longer operation time and post-operative LOS were observed in the RLP group (P < 0.05). Compared with the ROP group, the older age, higher weight, and longer post-operative LOS in the RLP group (P < 0.05). After PSM, longer post-operative LOS was observed in the ROP group (P < 0.05). The failure and complication rates were comparable between RLP and PLP or RLP and ROP (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our result demonstrated that RLP performed as well as PLP except for a longer operation time. Compared with ROP, RLP has the advantages of a clearer surgical view, sufficient exposure, clearer anatomical landmark position, and minor trauma with a comparable clinical outcome. On experienced hands, RLP for recurrent UPJO after is a safe and effective procedure and should be considered an excellent alternative to the more commonly recommended ROP in select patients. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9497869/ /pubmed/36160807 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.997196 Text en Copyright © 2022 Li, Yang, Li, Fan, Wang, Yang, Liu, Song and Zhang. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Pediatrics
Li, Jiayi
Yang, Yang
Li, Zonghan
Fan, Songqiao
Wang, Xinyu
Yang, Zhenzhen
Liu, Pei
Song, Hongcheng
Zhang, Weiping
Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Propensity score matched analyses of a high-volume center
title Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Propensity score matched analyses of a high-volume center
title_full Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Propensity score matched analyses of a high-volume center
title_fullStr Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Propensity score matched analyses of a high-volume center
title_full_unstemmed Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Propensity score matched analyses of a high-volume center
title_short Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Propensity score matched analyses of a high-volume center
title_sort redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: propensity score matched analyses of a high-volume center
topic Pediatrics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9497869/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36160807
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.997196
work_keys_str_mv AT lijiayi redolaparoscopicpyeloplastyforrecurrentureteropelvicjunctionobstructionpropensityscorematchedanalysesofahighvolumecenter
AT yangyang redolaparoscopicpyeloplastyforrecurrentureteropelvicjunctionobstructionpropensityscorematchedanalysesofahighvolumecenter
AT lizonghan redolaparoscopicpyeloplastyforrecurrentureteropelvicjunctionobstructionpropensityscorematchedanalysesofahighvolumecenter
AT fansongqiao redolaparoscopicpyeloplastyforrecurrentureteropelvicjunctionobstructionpropensityscorematchedanalysesofahighvolumecenter
AT wangxinyu redolaparoscopicpyeloplastyforrecurrentureteropelvicjunctionobstructionpropensityscorematchedanalysesofahighvolumecenter
AT yangzhenzhen redolaparoscopicpyeloplastyforrecurrentureteropelvicjunctionobstructionpropensityscorematchedanalysesofahighvolumecenter
AT liupei redolaparoscopicpyeloplastyforrecurrentureteropelvicjunctionobstructionpropensityscorematchedanalysesofahighvolumecenter
AT songhongcheng redolaparoscopicpyeloplastyforrecurrentureteropelvicjunctionobstructionpropensityscorematchedanalysesofahighvolumecenter
AT zhangweiping redolaparoscopicpyeloplastyforrecurrentureteropelvicjunctionobstructionpropensityscorematchedanalysesofahighvolumecenter