• G Janetschek, R Peschel, F Frauscher, and F Franscher.
• Department of Urology, University of Innsbruck, Austria. günter.janetschek@elisabethincan.or.at
• Urol. Clin. North Am. 2000 Nov 1; 27 (4): 695-704.

AbstractLaparoscopic pyeloplasty must be compared with open surgery in terms of efficacy and with endopyelotomy in terms of morbidity. All of the series published so far show that the results of laparoscopic pyeloplasty equal those of open surgery. Laparoscopy is associated with a lower morbidity; therefore, it is preferable to open surgery. The morbidity of endopyelotomy is also low, at least when it is performed in a retrograde fashion. The results of endopyelotomy are poor if UPJ obstruction is caused by crossing vessels. In addition, endopyelotomy in this clinical setting carries the risk of hemorrhage. Most adults with symptomatic UPJ obstruction present with crossing vessels at the UPJ. These patients benefit from laparoscopy, and endopyelotomy should be reserved for patients with true intrinsic stenoses. For this reason, preoperative investigation using contemporary imaging techniques is of crucial importance to be able to select the most appropriate surgical method for a given patient. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty is technically feasible but difficult. The authors prefer nondismembered techniques that yield equally good results in selected patients. Nondismembered pyeloplasty as described by Fenger is easy to perform and well suited for laparoscopy.

16 keywords...

hide…