«Miniature» Approach for Pyeloplasty in Children: Primary Use Experience Report
https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2020-8-1-92-98
Abstract
Currently, laparoscopic pyeloplasty is gaining popularity in pediatric urology due to less invasive compared to the open standard pyeloplasty. Nevertheless, there are basic “critical” remarks about this pyeloplasty technique in children, which involve some difficulties in comparing tissues and intracorporeal suturing due to the limited available space. In addition, a significant negative point of laparoscopic pyeloplasty is the duration of the operation, especially in the younger age group of children. Despite all the advantages associated with minimal invasiveness, there are alternative methods of surgical treatment, which show quite impressive results. In our practical work, we performed minimally invasive open pyeloplasty: with a miniature incision, in a child with ureteropelvic junction obstruction with a good result. In addition, this access provides a wide exposure of the ureteropelvic junction and easy tissue manipulation.
About the Authors
S. T. Agzamkhodjaev
Tashkent Pediatric Medical Institute
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Saidanvar T. Agzamkhodjaev ‒ M.D., Ph.D. (M); Doctoral Candidate, Dept. of Pediatric Surgery
tel.: 9 (9897) 420-30-03
Z. B. Abdullaev
Tashkent Pediatric Medical Institute
Russian Federation
Zafar B. Abdullaev ‒ M.D.; Ass. Dept. of Pediatric Surgery
Russian Federation
Zafar B. Abdullaev ‒ M.D.; Ass. Dept. of Pediatric Surgery
D. S. Yunusov
Multidisciplinary medical centre «Akfa Medline»
Russian Federation
Dilmurod S. Yunusov ‒ M.D.; Head, Urology Division
Russian Federation
Dilmurod S. Yunusov ‒ M.D.; Head, Urology Division
A. N. Tursunkulov
Multidisciplinary medical centre «Akfa Medline»
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Azimjon N. Tursunkulov ‒ M.D, Ph.D. (M); Endourologist, Urology Division
References
1. Weitz M, Schmidt M, Laube G. Primary non-surgical management of unilateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review. Pediatr Nephrol. 2017;32(12):2203‒2213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-016-3566-3
2. Krajewski W, Wojciechowska J, Dembowski J, Zdrojowy R, Szydełko T. Hydronephrosis in the course of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: An underestimated problem? Current opinions on the pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2017;26(5):857‒864. https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/59509
3. Oliveira EA, Oliveira MC, Mak RH. Evaluation and management of hydronephrosis in the neonate. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2016;28(2):195–201. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0000000000000321
4. Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ. Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur. Urol. 2003;44(3):340‒345. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00297-5
5. Yanke BV, Lallas CD, Pagnani C, McGinnis DE, Bagley DH. The minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a review of our experience during the last decade. J Urol. 2008;180(4):1397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.020
6. Singh V, Garg M, Sharma P, Sinha RJ, Kumar M. Mini incision open pyeloplasty - Improvement in patient outcome. Int Braz J Urol. 2015;41(5):927‒934. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.0024
7. Ruiz E, Soria R, Ormaechea E, Marcelo M, Lino U, Moldes JM, Ignacio de Badiola F. Simplified Open Approach to Surgical Treatment of Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Young Children and Infants. J Urol. 2011;185(6):2512‒2516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.01.012
8. Kajbafzadeh AM, Tourchi A, Nezami BG, Khakpour M, Mousavian AA, Talab SSh. Miniature pyeloplasty as a minimally invasive surgery with less than 1-day admission in infants. JPediatrUrol. 2011;7(3):283‒288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2011.02.030
9. O’nol FF, Akbas A, Kose O, Onol SY. Short stay pyeloplasty with transverse dorsal lumbotomy incision: our 10-year experience. Urology. 2009;74(6):1309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.090
10. Nguyen HT, Herndon CD, Cooper C, Gatti J, Kirsch A, Kokorowski P, Lee R, Perez-Brayfield M, Metcalfe P, Yerkes E, Cendron M, Campbell JB. The Society for Fetal Urology consensus statement on the evaluation and management of antenatal hydronephrosis. J Ped. Urol. 2010;6(3):212‒231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2010.02.205
11. Kavoussi LR, Peters CA. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150(6):1891‒1894. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)35926-8
12. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150(6):1795–1799. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)35898-6
13. Yeung CK, Tam YH, Sihoe JD, Lee KH, Liu KW. Retroperitoneoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for pelviureteric junction obstruction in infants and children. BJU Int. 2001;87(6):509–513. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00129.x
14. Kagantsov I.M., Minin A.E., Sannikov I.A. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty is the modern standard in the treatment of congenital hydronephrosis in children. Russian Bulletin of Pediatric Surgery, Anesthesiology and Intensive Care. 2012;2(2): 15‒20. (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 17847985
15. Vrublevsky S.G., Gurevich A.I., Vrublevskaya E.N., Al-Mashat N.A., Shmyrov O.S., Zakharov A.I., Sklyarova T.A., Koroleva O.B., Efimova V.I. Endosurgical pyeloplasty in children as evolution of the «golden standard». Children’s surgery. 2013;(6):4‒6. (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 21178610
16. Bondarenko S.G., Abramov G.G. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants. Children’s Hyurgia. 2013;(6):7‒10. (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 21178611
17. Janetschek G., Peschel R., Altarac S, Bartsch G. Laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 1996;47(3):311‒316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80444-0
18. Cascio S, Tien A, Chee W, Tan HL. Laparoscopic Dismembered Pyeloplasty in Children Younger Than 2 Years. J Urol. 2007;177(1):335‒338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.145
19. Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, Fugita O, Kavoussi, LR. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol. 2002;167(3):1253‒1256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65276-7
20. Job K, Chacko AB, Martin A, Koyle AB, Gerald C, Mingin AB, Peter D. The minimally invasive open pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2006;2(4):368‒372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2006.05.001
Review
For citations:
Agzamkhodjaev S.T., Abdullaev Z.B., Yunusov D.S., Tursunkulov A.N. «Miniature» Approach for Pyeloplasty in Children: Primary Use Experience Report. Urology Herald. 2020;8(1):92-98. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2020-8-1-92-98
Views:
1405
Email this article 
