Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1 (5-Year IF – 2.0)
Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) (2023) – 0.4
Scopus CiteScore – 3.7 (CiteScore Tracker 3.3)
Index Copernicus  – 161.11; MNiSW – 70 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2019, vol. 28, nr 6, June, p. 777–782

doi: 10.17219/acem/94142

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Management of crossing vessels in children and adults: A multi-center experience with the transperitoneal laparoscopic approach

Wojciech Panek1,A,B,C,D, T.p.V.m De Jong2,E, Tomasz Szydełko1,E, Rafał Chrzan3,C,D,E,F

1 Division of Oncology and Palliative Care, Faculty of Health Sciences, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

2 Department of Pediatric Urology, UMC-WKZ Utrecht, the Netherlands

3 Department of Pediatric Urology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland

Abstract

Background. Crossing vessels (CVs) are common in older children and adults with hydronephrosis but no gold standard exists on how to treat this condition. The final decision is made intraoperatively by the surgeon.
Objectives. To assess the outcome of the laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty with translocation of the CVs in children and adults.
Material and Methods. Prospectively collected data from 3 departments was reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: 1) a transperitoneal laparoscopic approach; 2) dismembered pyeloplasty; and 3) the same operating pediatric urologist (RC) or urologist (TS). In the case of CVs, pyeloplasty with vessel transposition (children) or with cephalad translocation (adults) was performed. Forty-eight children and 41 adults met these criteria. Patients were divided into 4 groups: children with (group 1A) and without (group 1B) CVs, and adults with (group 2A) and without (group 2B) CVs. Any surgical reintervention at the uretero–pelvic junction (UPJ) was deemed a failure.
Results. The overall reintervention rate was 3/48 (6.25%) in children and 2/41 (4.9%) in adults (p > 0.05), and involved the following: 4 endopyelotomies and 1 redo pyeloplasty. Crossing vessels were identified in 28/48 (58%) children and 12/41 (29%) adults. The mean operation time was 152 min in group 1A and 161 min in group 2A (p > 0.5). Reintervention was needed in 2/28 patients in group 1A and in 1/12 patients in group 2A (p > 0.05). There was no difference in the failure rate between group 1A and group 1B, nor between group 2A and group 2B (p > 0.05).
Conclusion. Crossing vessels should be meticulously looked for during pyeloplasty in older children and adults. Dismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) with dorsal transposition or cephalad translocation are comparable methods in terms of success rate for the treatment of UPJ obstruction in these patients.

Key words

laparoscopic, hydronephrosis, pyeloplasty, UPJO

References (31)

  1. Fefer S, Ellsworth P. Prenatal hydronephrosis. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2006;53(3):429–447.
  2. Hashim H, Woodhouse CRJ. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction. European Urology Supplements: Official Journal of the European Association of Urology. 2012;11(2):25–32.
  3. Menon P, Rao KLN, Sodhi KS, Bhattacharya A, Saxena AK, Mittal BR. Hydronephrosis: Comparison of extrinsic vessel versus intrinsic ureteropelvic junction obstruction groups and a plea against the vascular hitch procedure. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(2):80.e1–6.
  4. Szydelko T, Apoznanski W, Koleda P, Rusiecki L, Janczak D. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with cephalad translocation of the crossing vessel – a new approach to the Hellström technique. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2015;10(1):25–29.
  5. Singh RR, Govindarajan KK, Chandran H. Laparoscopic vascular relocation: Alternative treatment for renovascular hydronephrosis in children. Pediatr Surg Int. 2010;26(7):717–720.
  6. Cain MP, Rink RC, Thomas AC, Austin PF, Kaefer M, Casale AJ. Symptomatic ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children in the era of prenatal sonography: Is there a higher incidence of crossing vessels? Urology. 2001;57(2):338–341.
  7. Anderson JC, Hynes W: Retrocaval ureter: A case diagnosed preoperatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol. 1949;21(3):209.
  8. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150(6):1795–1799.
  9. Peters CA, Schlussel RN, Retic AB. Pediatric laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1995;153(6):1962–1965.
  10. Knoedler J, Han L, Granberg C, et al. Population-based comparison of laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in pediatric pelvi-ureretic junction obstruction. BJU Int. 2013;111(7):1141–1147.
  11. García-Aparicio L, Blazquez-Gomez E, Martin O, et al. Pyeloplasty in patients less than 12 months old. Is the laparoscopic approach safe and feasible? J Endourol. 2014;28(8):906–908.
  12. Tekgül S, Dogan HS, Erdem E, et al. Guidelines on Paediatric Urology. European Association of Urology Guidelines; 2015:43. https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-Paediatric-Urology-2015.pdf.
  13. Szydełko T, Kasprzak J, Lewandowski J, Apoznański W, Dembow­ski J. Dismembered laparoscopic Anderson–Hynes pyeloplasty versus non-dismembered laparoscopic Y-V pyeloplasty in the treatment of patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A prospective study. J Endourol. 2012;26(9):1165–1170.
  14. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–213.
  15. Leavitt DA, Nicholson AF, Ortiz-Alvarado O, et al. Nature of crossing vessels in patients with radiographically normal ureteropelvic junctions: Prevalence and anatomic characteristics. Urology. 2013;81(6):1168–1172.
  16. Simforoosh N, Tabibi A, Nouralizadeh A, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Shayaninasab H. Laparoscopic management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction by division of anterior crossing vein and cephalad relocation of anterior crossing artery. J Endourol. 2005;19(7):827–830.
  17. Badawy H, Zoair A, Ghoneim T, Hanno A. Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: Randomized clinical trial. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(3):122.e1–6.
  18. Seixas-Mikelus SA, Jenkins LC, Williot P, Greenfield SP. Pediatric pyeloplasty: Comparison of literature meta-analysis of laparoscopic and open techniques with open surgery at a single institution. J Urol. 2009;182(5):2428–2432.
  19. Carr MC, El-Ghoneimi A. Anomalies and surgery of the ureteropelvic junction in children. In: Wein AJ, Novick AC, Partin A, Peters CA, eds. Camp-bell-Walsh Urology, Vol. 4. 9th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2007:3370.
  20. Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, et al. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):430–452.
  21. Moon DA, El-Shazly MA, Chang CM, Gianduzzo TR, Eden CG. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Evolution of a new gold standard. Urology. 2006;67(5):932–936.
  22. Türk IA, Davis JW, Winkelmann B, et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: The method of choice in the presence of an enlarged renal pelvis and crossing vessels. Eur Urol. 2002;42(3):268–275.
  23. Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ong AM, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Current status. BJU Int. 2005;95(Suppl 2):102–105.
  24. Meng MV, Stoller ML. Hellström technique revisited: Laparoscopic management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2003;62(3):404–408.
  25. Zhang X, Xu K, Fu B, et al. The retroperitoneal laparoscopic Hellström technique for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction from a crossing vessel. BJU Int. 2007;100(6):1335–1338.
  26. Gundeti MS, Reynolds WS, Duffy PG, Mushtaq I. Further experience with the vascular hitch (laparoscopic transposition of lower pole crossing vessels): An alternate treatment for pediatric ureterovascular ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol. 2008;180(4 Suppl):1832–1836.
  27. Schneider A, Ferreira CG, Delay C, Lacreuse I, Moog R, Becmeur F. Lower pole vessels in children with pelviureteric junction obstruction: Laparo-scopic vascular hitch or dismembered pyeloplasty? J Pediatr Urol. 2013;9(4):419–423.
  28. Singh RR, Govindarajan KK, Chandran H. Laparoscopic vascular relocation: Alternative treatment for renovascular hydronephrosis in children. Pediatr Surg Int. 2010;26(7):717–720.
  29. Simforoosh N, Javaherforooshzadeh A, Aminsharifi A, Soltani MH, Radfar MH, Kilani H. Laparoscopic management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in pediatric patients: A new approach to crossing vessels, crossing vein division, and upward transposition of the crossing artery. J Pediatr Urol. 2010;6(2):161–165.
  30. Blanc T, Muller C, Abdoul H, et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: Long-term outcome and critical analysis of 10-year expe-rience in a teaching center. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):565–572.
  31. van der Toorn F, van den Hoek J, Wolffenbuttel KP, Scheepe JR. Laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty in children from age of 3 years: Our clinical outcomes compared with open surgery. J Pediatr Urol. 2013;9(2):161–168.
© Wroclaw Medical University