Failed Pyeloplasty in Children: Revisiting the Unknown

Objective To perform a critical analysis of the management of the pediatric failed pyeloplasty in a large tertiary center. The ideal approach to this rare entity is not well established. Methods Retrospective record review of children undergoing pyeloplasty from 2000 to 2010. All cases that required...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2013-11, Vol.82 (5), p.1145-1149
Hauptverfasser: Romao, Rodrigo L.P, Koyle, Martin A, Pippi Salle, Joao L, Alotay, Abdulhakim, Figueroa, Victor H, Lorenzo, Armando J, Bagli, Darius J, Farhat, Walid A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1149
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1145
container_title Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)
container_volume 82
creator Romao, Rodrigo L.P
Koyle, Martin A
Pippi Salle, Joao L
Alotay, Abdulhakim
Figueroa, Victor H
Lorenzo, Armando J
Bagli, Darius J
Farhat, Walid A
description Objective To perform a critical analysis of the management of the pediatric failed pyeloplasty in a large tertiary center. The ideal approach to this rare entity is not well established. Methods Retrospective record review of children undergoing pyeloplasty from 2000 to 2010. All cases that required any type of reintervention, excluding stent removal, were analyzed. Data collected included: demographics, indication for and modality of the initial surgery, presence of crossing vessels, mode of diagnosis of failure, and type(s) of reintervention with the correspondent success rate(s). Results Overall, pyeloplasty failure rate was 27 per 455 patients (5.9%). Age, initial indication for pyeloplasty, and modality of surgery (open vs laparoscopic) yielded similar failure rates. Indications for reintervention were as follows: worsening asymptomatic hydronephrosis 16 of 27 (59%), pain 7 of 27 (26%), urosepsis 2 of 27 (7.5%), and others 2 of 27 (7.5%). Eight of 27 (30%) improved with 1, 14 of 27 (52%) had 2, and 5 of 27 (18%) required 3 reinterventions, respectively. Mean interval between the first operation and subsequent interventions was 19.3, 24.9, and 27 months for the first, second, and third reinterventions, respectively. Modalities of reintervention with respective success rates were as follows: double J stent insertion 16% (6%), endopyelotomy 18% (50%), redo pyeloplasty 12% (92%), and ureterocalicostomy 4% (100%). Only 1 patient (7%) was documented to have a missed crossing vessel. All patients were stable and doing well after a mean follow-up of 56 months after the first operation. Conclusion According to this series, more invasive and definitive techniques, such as redo pyeloplasty and ureterocalicostomy, are more successful than minimally invasive ones to treat failed pyeloplasty and should probably be offered sooner rather than later.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.049
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1450197082</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0090429513008959</els_id><sourcerecordid>1450197082</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c516t-7dba481a6152b0c2355e67eb8371ef06141027f4a5851267a2fcfccf1f0b65de3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkcFu1DAQhi1ERZfCI4ByQeKSdOzEdswBhFYUKlUCAT1bjjNpvfU6Wzspytvj1S4gcelpLt_8M_MNIa8oVBSoON9Ucxz9eLNUDGhdgaigUU_IinImS6UUf0pWAArKhil-Sp6ntAEAIYR8Rk5ZAzWHmq6IuDDOY198W9CPO2_StBQuFOtb5_uI4V3xHR9ccpMLN8V0i8V1uAvjr_CCnAzGJ3x5rGfk-uLTz_WX8urr58v1x6vSciqmUvadaVpqRN6qA8tqzlFI7NpaUhxA0IYCk0NjeMspE9KwwQ7WDnSATvAe6zPy9pC7i-P9jGnSW5csem8CjnPStOFAlYSWZZQfUBvHlCIOehfd1sRFU9B7ZXqjj8r0XpkGobOy3Pf6OGLuttj_7frjKANvjoBJ1vghmmBd-sdJlY-AJnMfDhxmIQ8Oo07WYbDYu4h20v3oHl3l_X8J1rvg8tA7XDBtxjmGbFtTnZgG_WP_3_17aQ3QKq7q34KWoGA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1450197082</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Failed Pyeloplasty in Children: Revisiting the Unknown</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Romao, Rodrigo L.P ; Koyle, Martin A ; Pippi Salle, Joao L ; Alotay, Abdulhakim ; Figueroa, Victor H ; Lorenzo, Armando J ; Bagli, Darius J ; Farhat, Walid A</creator><creatorcontrib>Romao, Rodrigo L.P ; Koyle, Martin A ; Pippi Salle, Joao L ; Alotay, Abdulhakim ; Figueroa, Victor H ; Lorenzo, Armando J ; Bagli, Darius J ; Farhat, Walid A</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To perform a critical analysis of the management of the pediatric failed pyeloplasty in a large tertiary center. The ideal approach to this rare entity is not well established. Methods Retrospective record review of children undergoing pyeloplasty from 2000 to 2010. All cases that required any type of reintervention, excluding stent removal, were analyzed. Data collected included: demographics, indication for and modality of the initial surgery, presence of crossing vessels, mode of diagnosis of failure, and type(s) of reintervention with the correspondent success rate(s). Results Overall, pyeloplasty failure rate was 27 per 455 patients (5.9%). Age, initial indication for pyeloplasty, and modality of surgery (open vs laparoscopic) yielded similar failure rates. Indications for reintervention were as follows: worsening asymptomatic hydronephrosis 16 of 27 (59%), pain 7 of 27 (26%), urosepsis 2 of 27 (7.5%), and others 2 of 27 (7.5%). Eight of 27 (30%) improved with 1, 14 of 27 (52%) had 2, and 5 of 27 (18%) required 3 reinterventions, respectively. Mean interval between the first operation and subsequent interventions was 19.3, 24.9, and 27 months for the first, second, and third reinterventions, respectively. Modalities of reintervention with respective success rates were as follows: double J stent insertion 16% (6%), endopyelotomy 18% (50%), redo pyeloplasty 12% (92%), and ureterocalicostomy 4% (100%). Only 1 patient (7%) was documented to have a missed crossing vessel. All patients were stable and doing well after a mean follow-up of 56 months after the first operation. Conclusion According to this series, more invasive and definitive techniques, such as redo pyeloplasty and ureterocalicostomy, are more successful than minimally invasive ones to treat failed pyeloplasty and should probably be offered sooner rather than later.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0090-4295</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-9995</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.049</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24035031</identifier><identifier>CODEN: URGYAZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Canada ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Databases, Factual ; Humans ; Hydronephrosis - congenital ; Hydronephrosis - surgery ; Infant ; Laparoscopy - methods ; Medical sciences ; Multicystic Dysplastic Kidney - surgery ; Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases ; Retrospective Studies ; Stents ; Tertiary Care Centers ; Treatment Failure ; Ureteral Obstruction - surgery ; Urologic Surgical Procedures - methods ; Urology</subject><ispartof>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.), 2013-11, Vol.82 (5), p.1145-1149</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2013 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2014 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c516t-7dba481a6152b0c2355e67eb8371ef06141027f4a5851267a2fcfccf1f0b65de3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c516t-7dba481a6152b0c2355e67eb8371ef06141027f4a5851267a2fcfccf1f0b65de3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.049$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,3551,27926,27927,45997</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=27910204$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24035031$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Romao, Rodrigo L.P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koyle, Martin A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pippi Salle, Joao L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alotay, Abdulhakim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Figueroa, Victor H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lorenzo, Armando J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bagli, Darius J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farhat, Walid A</creatorcontrib><title>Failed Pyeloplasty in Children: Revisiting the Unknown</title><title>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</title><addtitle>Urology</addtitle><description>Objective To perform a critical analysis of the management of the pediatric failed pyeloplasty in a large tertiary center. The ideal approach to this rare entity is not well established. Methods Retrospective record review of children undergoing pyeloplasty from 2000 to 2010. All cases that required any type of reintervention, excluding stent removal, were analyzed. Data collected included: demographics, indication for and modality of the initial surgery, presence of crossing vessels, mode of diagnosis of failure, and type(s) of reintervention with the correspondent success rate(s). Results Overall, pyeloplasty failure rate was 27 per 455 patients (5.9%). Age, initial indication for pyeloplasty, and modality of surgery (open vs laparoscopic) yielded similar failure rates. Indications for reintervention were as follows: worsening asymptomatic hydronephrosis 16 of 27 (59%), pain 7 of 27 (26%), urosepsis 2 of 27 (7.5%), and others 2 of 27 (7.5%). Eight of 27 (30%) improved with 1, 14 of 27 (52%) had 2, and 5 of 27 (18%) required 3 reinterventions, respectively. Mean interval between the first operation and subsequent interventions was 19.3, 24.9, and 27 months for the first, second, and third reinterventions, respectively. Modalities of reintervention with respective success rates were as follows: double J stent insertion 16% (6%), endopyelotomy 18% (50%), redo pyeloplasty 12% (92%), and ureterocalicostomy 4% (100%). Only 1 patient (7%) was documented to have a missed crossing vessel. All patients were stable and doing well after a mean follow-up of 56 months after the first operation. Conclusion According to this series, more invasive and definitive techniques, such as redo pyeloplasty and ureterocalicostomy, are more successful than minimally invasive ones to treat failed pyeloplasty and should probably be offered sooner rather than later.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Databases, Factual</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hydronephrosis - congenital</subject><subject>Hydronephrosis - surgery</subject><subject>Infant</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Multicystic Dysplastic Kidney - surgery</subject><subject>Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Stents</subject><subject>Tertiary Care Centers</subject><subject>Treatment Failure</subject><subject>Ureteral Obstruction - surgery</subject><subject>Urologic Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Urology</subject><issn>0090-4295</issn><issn>1527-9995</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkcFu1DAQhi1ERZfCI4ByQeKSdOzEdswBhFYUKlUCAT1bjjNpvfU6Wzspytvj1S4gcelpLt_8M_MNIa8oVBSoON9Ucxz9eLNUDGhdgaigUU_IinImS6UUf0pWAArKhil-Sp6ntAEAIYR8Rk5ZAzWHmq6IuDDOY198W9CPO2_StBQuFOtb5_uI4V3xHR9ccpMLN8V0i8V1uAvjr_CCnAzGJ3x5rGfk-uLTz_WX8urr58v1x6vSciqmUvadaVpqRN6qA8tqzlFI7NpaUhxA0IYCk0NjeMspE9KwwQ7WDnSATvAe6zPy9pC7i-P9jGnSW5csem8CjnPStOFAlYSWZZQfUBvHlCIOehfd1sRFU9B7ZXqjj8r0XpkGobOy3Pf6OGLuttj_7frjKANvjoBJ1vghmmBd-sdJlY-AJnMfDhxmIQ8Oo07WYbDYu4h20v3oHl3l_X8J1rvg8tA7XDBtxjmGbFtTnZgG_WP_3_17aQ3QKq7q34KWoGA</recordid><startdate>20131101</startdate><enddate>20131101</enddate><creator>Romao, Rodrigo L.P</creator><creator>Koyle, Martin A</creator><creator>Pippi Salle, Joao L</creator><creator>Alotay, Abdulhakim</creator><creator>Figueroa, Victor H</creator><creator>Lorenzo, Armando J</creator><creator>Bagli, Darius J</creator><creator>Farhat, Walid A</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131101</creationdate><title>Failed Pyeloplasty in Children: Revisiting the Unknown</title><author>Romao, Rodrigo L.P ; Koyle, Martin A ; Pippi Salle, Joao L ; Alotay, Abdulhakim ; Figueroa, Victor H ; Lorenzo, Armando J ; Bagli, Darius J ; Farhat, Walid A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c516t-7dba481a6152b0c2355e67eb8371ef06141027f4a5851267a2fcfccf1f0b65de3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Databases, Factual</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hydronephrosis - congenital</topic><topic>Hydronephrosis - surgery</topic><topic>Infant</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Multicystic Dysplastic Kidney - surgery</topic><topic>Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Stents</topic><topic>Tertiary Care Centers</topic><topic>Treatment Failure</topic><topic>Ureteral Obstruction - surgery</topic><topic>Urologic Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Romao, Rodrigo L.P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koyle, Martin A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pippi Salle, Joao L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alotay, Abdulhakim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Figueroa, Victor H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lorenzo, Armando J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bagli, Darius J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farhat, Walid A</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Romao, Rodrigo L.P</au><au>Koyle, Martin A</au><au>Pippi Salle, Joao L</au><au>Alotay, Abdulhakim</au><au>Figueroa, Victor H</au><au>Lorenzo, Armando J</au><au>Bagli, Darius J</au><au>Farhat, Walid A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Failed Pyeloplasty in Children: Revisiting the Unknown</atitle><jtitle>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</jtitle><addtitle>Urology</addtitle><date>2013-11-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>82</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1145</spage><epage>1149</epage><pages>1145-1149</pages><issn>0090-4295</issn><eissn>1527-9995</eissn><coden>URGYAZ</coden><abstract>Objective To perform a critical analysis of the management of the pediatric failed pyeloplasty in a large tertiary center. The ideal approach to this rare entity is not well established. Methods Retrospective record review of children undergoing pyeloplasty from 2000 to 2010. All cases that required any type of reintervention, excluding stent removal, were analyzed. Data collected included: demographics, indication for and modality of the initial surgery, presence of crossing vessels, mode of diagnosis of failure, and type(s) of reintervention with the correspondent success rate(s). Results Overall, pyeloplasty failure rate was 27 per 455 patients (5.9%). Age, initial indication for pyeloplasty, and modality of surgery (open vs laparoscopic) yielded similar failure rates. Indications for reintervention were as follows: worsening asymptomatic hydronephrosis 16 of 27 (59%), pain 7 of 27 (26%), urosepsis 2 of 27 (7.5%), and others 2 of 27 (7.5%). Eight of 27 (30%) improved with 1, 14 of 27 (52%) had 2, and 5 of 27 (18%) required 3 reinterventions, respectively. Mean interval between the first operation and subsequent interventions was 19.3, 24.9, and 27 months for the first, second, and third reinterventions, respectively. Modalities of reintervention with respective success rates were as follows: double J stent insertion 16% (6%), endopyelotomy 18% (50%), redo pyeloplasty 12% (92%), and ureterocalicostomy 4% (100%). Only 1 patient (7%) was documented to have a missed crossing vessel. All patients were stable and doing well after a mean follow-up of 56 months after the first operation. Conclusion According to this series, more invasive and definitive techniques, such as redo pyeloplasty and ureterocalicostomy, are more successful than minimally invasive ones to treat failed pyeloplasty and should probably be offered sooner rather than later.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>24035031</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.049</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0090-4295
ispartof Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.), 2013-11, Vol.82 (5), p.1145-1149
issn 0090-4295
1527-9995
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1450197082
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Canada
Child
Child, Preschool
Databases, Factual
Humans
Hydronephrosis - congenital
Hydronephrosis - surgery
Infant
Laparoscopy - methods
Medical sciences
Multicystic Dysplastic Kidney - surgery
Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases
Retrospective Studies
Stents
Tertiary Care Centers
Treatment Failure
Ureteral Obstruction - surgery
Urologic Surgical Procedures - methods
Urology
title Failed Pyeloplasty in Children: Revisiting the Unknown
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T17%3A51%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Failed%20Pyeloplasty%20in%20Children:%20Revisiting%20the%20Unknown&rft.jtitle=Urology%20(Ridgewood,%20N.J.)&rft.au=Romao,%20Rodrigo%20L.P&rft.date=2013-11-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1145&rft.epage=1149&rft.pages=1145-1149&rft.issn=0090-4295&rft.eissn=1527-9995&rft.coden=URGYAZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.049&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1450197082%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1450197082&rft_id=info:pmid/24035031&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0090429513008959&rfr_iscdi=true