title: Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The aim was to analyze the operative, postoperative and functional outcome of laparoscopic management of previously failed pyeloplasty and to compare operative and postoperative outcome with laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).
  
  
  METHODS
  All patients who underwent laparoscopic management for previously failed dismembered pyeloplasty were analyzed in this study. Detailed clinical and imaging evaluation was performed. Transperitoneal approach was followed to repair the recurrent UPJO. Operative, postoperative, and follow-up functional details were recorded. Operative and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty were compared with that of laparoscopic primary pyeloplasty.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 16 patients were managed with laparoscopic approach for previously failed pyeloplasty. Primary surgical approach for dismembered pyeloplasty was open in 11, laparoscopy in four patients and robotic assisted in one patient. Fifteen were treated with redo pyeloplasty and one with ureterocalicostomy. Mean operative time was 191.25 ± 24.99 min, mean duration of hospital stay was 3.2 ± 0.45 days and mean follow-up duration was 29.9 ± 18.5 months with success rate of 93.3%. Operative time was significantly prolonged with redo pyeloplasty group compared with primary pyeloplasty group (191.25 ± 24.99 vs. 145 ± 22.89, P = 0.0001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty is a viable option with a satisfactory outcome and less morbidity.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre, Kochi, Kerala, India.
authors.forename: George P
authors.initials: GP
authors.lastname: Abraham
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre, Kochi, Kerala, India.
authors.forename: Avinash T
authors.initials: AT
authors.lastname: Siddaiah
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre, Kochi, Kerala, India.
authors.forename: Krishnamohan
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Ramaswami
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre, Kochi, Kerala, India.
authors.forename: Datson
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: George
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre, Kochi, Kerala, India.
authors.forename: Krishanu
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Das
keywords: Laparoscopy; pyeloplasty; ureteropelvic junction
references.citation: Urol J. 2011 Winter;8(1):31-7
references.pmid: 21404200
references.citation: J Urol. 2003 Jun;169(6):2037-40
references.pmid: 12771713
references.citation: J Urol. 2012 Sep;188(3):932-7
references.pmid: 22819409
references.citation: J Urol. 1996 Aug;156(2 Pt 2):738-40
references.pmid: 8683772
references.citation: J Endourol. 2006 Oct;20(10):808-12
references.pmid: 17094759
references.citation: J Pediatr Surg. 1994 Jul;29(7):937-40
references.pmid: 7931975
references.citation: Urology. 2011 Jun;77(6):1450-4
references.pmid: 21256576
references.citation: J Urol. 1997 May;157(5):1625-9
references.pmid: 9112491
references.citation: J Urol. 2007 May;177(5):1878-82
references.pmid: 17437840
references.citation: J Endourol. 2007 Sep;21(9):1045-51; discussion 1051
references.pmid: 17941785
references.citation: J Urol. 1993 Dec;150(6):1795-9
references.pmid: 8230507
references.citation: Pediatr Radiol. 1996 Dec;26(12 ):882-6
references.pmid: 8929302
references.citation: J Urol. 2005 Dec;174(6):2363-6
references.pmid: 16280844
references.citation: J Urol. 1997 Sep;158(3 Pt 2):1257-9
references.pmid: 9258188
references.citation: J Urol. 1998 Sep;160(3 Pt 1):690-2; discussion 692-3
references.pmid: 9720522
references.citation: Int J Urol. 2008 Aug;15(8):744-6
references.pmid: 18786197
references.citation: J Urol. 2007 Dec;178(6):2571-5; discussion 2575
references.pmid: 17945304