title: Endopyelotomy and pyeloplasty: face to face.
abstract: 46 symptomatic adult patients with documented ureteropelvic junction obstruction were treated with pyeloplasty (n = 23) or endopyelotomy (n = 23). Basic characteristics in both the groups were comparable. The technical aspects, complications and outcome, in the form of improvement in function and drainage patterns, were compared in both the groups. Endopyelotomy enjoyed the significant advantages of a shorter operating time and hospital stay, and obviously better cosmetic acceptance. The major complications in the endopyelotomy groups were related to external drainage and secondary infection in the form of fever, secondary hemorrhage and slippage of tubes in 44, 9 and 13% of cases, respectively. Complications associated with pyeloplasty were prolonged urinary leak, wound infection and urinary tract infection in 12, 17 and 22% of cases, respectively. Using 99Tc-DTPA diuretic scan, an improvement of more than 10% in split renal function could not be documented for any case from either group. In none of the patients did the function deteriorate either. Of all evaluable cases, only 1 in the pyeloplasty group showed a persistent obstructive pattern. The rest all demonstrated adequate drainage across the ureteropelvic junction. Overall in 12 cases (8 pyeloplasty, 4 endopyelotomy) drainage could not be determined postoperatively due to poor radionuclide uptake. A nephrostogram and/or pressure flow study, however, demonstrated a nonobstructive pattern in all these patients. It is concluded that endopyelotomy scores over pyeloplasty with a shorter operating time and hospital stay. The complication rate and outcome following surgery, however, are comparable in both the groups. Using external drainage following endopyelotomy, early resumption of work, however, could not be obtained.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Sanjay Gandhi Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
authors.forename: G K
authors.initials: GK
authors.lastname: Banerjee
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Ahlawat
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Dalela
authors.forename: R V
authors.initials: RV
authors.lastname: Kumar
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D015901:Angiography, Digital Subtraction; D002408:Catheters, Indwelling; D002985:Clinical Protocols; D004322:Drainage; D004868:Equipment Failure; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007677:Kidney Function Tests; D007682:Kidney Pelvis / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D007902:Length of Stay; D008875:Middle Aged; D009392:Nephrectomy / Q000379:methods*; D009403:Nephrostomy, Percutaneous / Q000379:methods; D011182:Postoperative Care; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology / Q000628:therapy; D015607:Stents; D013997:Time Factors; D014517:Ureteral Obstruction / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D014546:Urinary Catheterization