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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2013-11, Vol.82 (5), p.1145-1149 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=27910204$$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 |