Abstract
Purpose
This multi-institutional study aimed to assess the outcomes of laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy (LUC) and robot-assisted laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy (RALUC) and compare them with laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) in children with pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction (PUJO).
Methods
The data of 130 patients (80 boys), with median age 7.6 years and median weight 33.8 kg, receiving minimally invasive treatment of PUJO over a 6-year period, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were grouped according to the operative approach: G1 included 15 patients, receiving LUC (n = 9) and RALUC (n = 6), and G2 included 115 patients, receiving LP (n = 30) and RALP (n = 85). Patient characteristics and operative outcomes were compared in both groups.
Results
The median patient age and weight were significantly higher in G1 than in G2 [p = 0.001]. The median operative time was similar in both groups (157.6 vs 150.1 min) [p = 0.66] whereas the median anastomotic time was shorter in G1 than in G2 (59.5 vs 83.1 min) [p = 0.03]. The surgical success rate was similar in both groups (100% vs 97.4%) [p = 0.33]. Post-operative complications rate was higher in G1 than in G2 (20% vs 6.1%) but all G1 complications were Clavien 2 and did not require re-intervention.
Conclusion
LUC/RALUC can be considered safe and effective alternative approaches to LP/RALP for PUJO repair and reported excellent outcomes as primary and salvage procedures. Robot-assisted technique was the preferred option to treat most patients with recurrent PUJO in both groups.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty represents the most common surgical approach adopted for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction (PUJO) repair. In recent years, laparoscopic and robot-assisted approaches have become effective alternatives to open technique, providing excellent results, also for management of cases with complex anatomy and previous failed pyeloplasty [1,2,3].
Ureterocalicostomy (UC) has been described as an alternative technique to Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty for management of selected cases, such as giant intra-renal pelvis, PUJO associated with anatomical anomalies such as horseshoe kidney or malrotated kidney or recurrent PUJO with dense scarring making redo pyeloplasty difficult or impossible [4,5,6,7].
Initially described by Neuwirt in 1948, UC involves the excision of the hydronephrotic thinned lower pole parenchyma and anastomosis of the dismembered ureter directly to the lower pole calyx to provide effective drainage [8, 9]. At beginning, an open approach was preferentially adopted to perform UC, due to the complexity of this technique, especially in recurrent PUJO [9]. However, open approach was associated with longer operative time and higher morbidity rates due to larger surgical incisions, longer length of stay, and increased analgesic therapy [10,11,12]. These disadvantages encouraged urologists to explore less invasive surgical options.
Laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy (LUC) was reported as a safe and feasible option in selected PUJO cases with parenchymal thinning due to atypical anatomy or failed pyeloplasty [13]. More recently, robot-assisted laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy (RALUC) has been reported as a viable and technically feasible treatment option for patients with recurrent PUJO or with difficult intra-renal pelvis [7, 14].
The efficacy of UC, as both primary and salvage technique, has been largely demonstrated and both laparoscopic and robot-assisted techniques have been described in the adult literature [15, 16]. Conversely, small case series of UC, using both laparoscopic and robot-assisted approach, have been reported in the pediatric population [17,18,19,20].
This multicenter international study aimed to assess the outcomes of LUC and RALUC and compare them to laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) in children with PUJO.
Materials and methods
The medical charts of 130 patients (80 boys), with median age 7.6 years and median weight 33.8 kg, receiving minimally invasive treatment of PUJO in 6 international pediatric surgery units over a 6-year period (December 2015 to December 2021), were retrospectively analyzed. Specific inclusion criteria were age > 3 years and weight > 20 kg for robot-assisted surgery and age > 1 year and weight > 10 kg for laparoscopic approach. Patients were grouped according to the operative approach: G1 included 15 patients, receiving LUC (n = 9) and RALUC (n = 6), and G2 included 115 patients, receiving LP (n = 30) and RALP (n = 85).
Pre-operative work-up included ultrasonography (US) for pelvic antero-posterior diameter (APD), and diuretic renal scan for split renal function (SRF) and drainage.
Our follow-up scheme included renal US at 1–3–6–12 months postoperatively and diuretic renal scan at 1 year postoperatively. Thereafter, patients performed renal US annually for at least 5 years after surgery. The minimal follow-up time in this study was 6 months.
This study received the appropriate Institute Review Board (IRB) approval.
LUC and RALUC operative technique
All patients underwent minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) transperitoneal UC. Patients were placed in semilateral flank position, with the operative side lifted using a pad underneath. A Foley catheter was placed into the bladder using sterile precautions. Both LUC and RALUC followed the same surgical steps. The colon was detached in all cases to easily expose the dilated kidney. The ureter was mobilized carefully to bring it closer to the lower pole (Fig. 1a). Then, it was ligated with resorbable sutures at the level of the renal pelvis or crossing vessels if the pelvis was not readily accessible and disconnected from the renal pelvis (Fig. 1b). The ureter was spatulated at least 1 cm before anastomosing it with the lower pole calyx. The most dependent part of the lower pole calyx was identified. To ensure a wide anastomosis and minimize the risk of stenosis, the renal parenchyma was largely incised to expose a sizeable area of the most dependent lower pole calyx. A tension-free anastomosis between the spatulated proximal ureter and the opened lower pole calyx was then created. The posterior wall of anastomosis was performed using a 5–0 polyglicolic acid running suture (Fig. 2a). Thereafter, the anterior anastomosis was performed using interrupted stitches, after ensuring that JJ stent was placed in an antegrade fashion over a guidewire introduced through the accessory port (Fig. 2b). At the end of procedure, a perirenal drain tube was placed for at least 24–48 h postoperatively (Fig. 2c). The JJ stent was removed after 4–6 weeks postoperatively.
Outcomes
Patient characteristics and operative outcomes were compared between both groups. Patient baseline evaluated were age, gender, weight, side of pathology, presence of symptoms. Particular attention was paid to the surgical indications and the technical details of the procedure.
The primary outcome of the study was surgical success rate. This was defined by absence of symptoms and/or decrease of pelvic antero-posterior diameter (APD) on post-operative US and/or improved drainage and/or preserved or improved SRF on post-operative diuretic renogram compared with pre-operative values.
Secondary outcome measures included: total operative time (including access, docking, reconstruction with stenting and closure), anastomotic time, length of stay (LOS), conversions, intra- and post-operative complications and need for re-operations. Post-operative complications were graded according to Clavien Dindo classification [21].
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA), version 13.0. Continuous data were summarized and presented as median with range. The categorical variables were presented as absolute numbers and percentages.
The categorical variables were analyzed using χ2 test and the continuous data were measured using Mann Whitney U test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
The median patient age was 10.1 years (range 3–17) in LUC/RALUC group (G1) and 5.1 years (range 1.6–14) in LP/RALP group (G2). The median patient weight was 41.1 kg (range 15–70) in G1 and 26.5 kg (range 11.2–70) in G2. Symptoms at time of diagnosis were present in 14/15 (93.3%) G1 patients and 68/115 (59.1%) G2 patients.
In all patients, initial surgical approach to PUJO, either primary or recurrent, was to perform dismembered Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. The decision to switch from Anderson-Hynes to UC was always made intra-operatively, based on anatomical conditions and technical challenge.
In 7/15 (46.7%) G1 patients, UC was performed as primary procedure for PUJO associated with unfavourable anatomy. This included intra-renal hydronephrosis with minimal or no evident extra-renal pelvis for reconstruction (n = 5) and renal malrotation (n = 2). In these 7 children, it was judged that conventional dismembered pyeloplasty anastomosis at the level of the renal pelvis could not ensure an adequate dependent drainage. In 8/15 (53.3%) G1 patients, LUC/RALUC was performed as “salvage” procedure for recurrent PUJO after prior failed open Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty (Supplementary Table).
LP/RALP was performed for primary PUJO in 99/115 (86.1%) G2 patients. Conversely, LP/RALP was adopted for recurrent PUJO after previous open or laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in 16/115 (13.9%) G2 patients.
The comparative analysis of patient baseline in both groups (Table 1) showed that the median patient age and the median patient weight were significantly higher in G1 than in G2 [p = 0.001]. Pre-operative symptoms were more frequent in G1 than in G2 [p = 0.001]. Most patients with recurrent PUJO were treated using robot-assisted approach. 5/8 (62.5%) patients with recurrent PUJO received RALUC in G1 and 12/16 (75%) underwent RALP in G2.
The comparative analysis of operative outcomes in both groups (Table 2) showed that the median operative time was similar in both groups (157.6 vs 150.1 min) [p = 0.66] whereas the median anastomotic time was significantly shorter in G1 than in G2 (59.5 vs 83.1 min) [p = 0.03]. No intra-operative complications or conversions occurred in both groups. The median LOS was also similar in both groups (2.8 vs 2.4 days) [p = 0.55].
The median length of follow-up was 37.2 months (range 6–60) in G1 and 38.1 months (range 8–63) in G2 [p = 0.58]. The surgical success rate was similar in both groups (100% vs 97.4%) [p = 0.33]. All patients of both groups were free of symptoms postoperatively. The median pelvic APD, measured on post-operative US, declined significantly in both groups (27.6–7.4 mm in G1; 29.8–6.5 mm in G2) [p = 0.001]. Improved drainage and preserved or improved SRF on diuretic renogram, performed at 1 year postoperatively, was observed in all patients of both groups.
Regarding post-operative complications, urinary leak (Clavien 2) occurred in 3/15 (20%) G1 patients, UTIs (Clavien 2) in 4/115 (3.5%) G2 patients and anastomotic stricture (Clavien 3b) in 3/115 (2.6%) G2 patients. Post-operative complications rate was significantly higher in G1 than in G2 [p = 0.03] but all complications reported in G1 were Clavien 2 grade and did not require re-intervention.
Discussion
UC has been described as the operation of choice for the management of most cases of recurrent PUJO as result of scarring and stenosis at the pelvi-ureteric junction (PUJ) preventing reconstruction [2, 22]. Our results confirmed these data: in our series, UC was adopted as “salvage procedure” for recurrent PUJO in 8/15 (53.3%) patients, all of whom reported excellent outcome, with resolution or improvement of hydronephrosis on US and improved drainage on renogram.
In addition to its role as “salvage” procedure, UC may offer distinct advantages over conventional Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty also for primary repair of PUJO in selected conditions. A good indication for UC is when PUJO is secondary to complicating anatomical anomalies of the kidney, such as horseshoe kidney or anomalies of renal rotation, a giant intra-renal pelvis or a short ureter [18]. In such anomalies, the aberrant vessels and the anomalous orientation of the renal pelvis and the PUJ cause difficulty in ensuring a valid dependent drainage by conventional pyeloplasty. In 7/15 (46.7%) patients of our series, UC was performed as primary procedure for PUJO associated with intra-renal hydronephrosis and unfavourable anatomy. In these 7 children, we judged that conventional pyeloplasty anastomosis at the level of the renal pelvis could not ensure an adequate dependent drainage. We believe that the anatomical conditions advocating UC in preference to pyeloplasty are presence of thinned cortex overlying dilated lower pole calyx; high insertion of the PUJ; and/or presence of a long proximal segment of stenotic ureter that may compromise tension-free ureteropelvic anastomosis.
Regarding the operative technique, the main steps of minimally invasive approaches (laparoscopic and robot-assisted) for UC did not differ from the open procedure. We believe that, beside the surgical approach adopted, the technical key points for successful UC are: (1) good exposure of lower pole calyx and generous excision of lower pole renal parenchyma overlying the most inferior dependent dilated calyx adjacent to the site of anastomosis; (2) Wide mobilization and spatulation of the ureter to provide a tension-free watertight ureterocaliceal anastomosis; (3) Closure of the renal pelvis at the site of the original PUJ or crossing vessels if the pelvis was not readily accessible. In our experience, the renal pelvis was not reduced in any case and the renal hilum was circumferentially mobilized and visualized. In our hands, this technique proved to be feasible, reporting an overall length of surgery like in LP/RALP but shorter time to complete the anastomosis.
Concerns remain about the outcome of LUC/RALUC. Bleeding from the incised renal parenchyma and the risk of anastomotic stricture and subsequent recurrent obstruction represent the most common complications of UC [23]. In performing LUC/RALUC, control of bleeding from the anastomotic site is one of the most crucial issues [24]. In all patients of our series, the renal parenchyma at the lower calyx was thin enough to incise it without risk of bleeding. The thickness of the renal parenchyma at the anastomotic site represents another key factor in patient selection for LUC/RALUC.
Recurrent obstruction following LUC/RALUC might be caused by scarring at the anastomotic site due to ischemic damage of renal parenchyma or ureter. This complication can be minimized by generous excision of the renal parenchyma at the anastomotic site and a tension-free anastomosis [14]. No patients in our series experienced recurrent obstruction; probably, the trans-anastomotic stenting most likely reduced the urinary extravasation, the formation of perianastomotic fibrosis and subsequent anastomotic stricture.
Our comparative analysis between the outcomes of LUC/RALUC and LP/RALP showed no significant differences with respect to success rate, overall length of surgery and re-operation. Post-operative complications rate was higher in LUC/RALUC series, but the occurred complications were all Clavien 2 and did not require any additional surgery.
Regarding the choice of surgical technique, robot-assisted approach was the preferred option to treat most patients with recurrent PUJO in both groups. The use of robotic technology, providing delicate dissection and fine suturing, reported excellent surgical outcomes also in challenging scenarios such as recurrent PUJO. The additional advantages of using robotics are three-dimensional visualization and increased freedom of movement compared to conventional laparoscopy [25, 26]. Accordingly, RALUC may be considered a promising option in the pediatric population, although the limitations to its widespread adoption remain the high costs, the patient age, and the availability of the robotic platform.
Limitations of this study include the retrospective design, the multi-institutional participation, and the heterogeneity of study groups, not allowing to perform a head-to-head comparison of UC with Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. However, given the rarity of this condition, it would be very difficult to perform a well-designed prospective study.
The experience reported in the present study endorsed the role of UC as versatile and reliable procedure for a variety of indications in pediatric patients, such as recurrent PUJO and primary PUJO with unfavourable anatomy. Both LUC and RALUC can be considered safe and effective alternative approaches for PUJO repair in children and reported excellent outcomes as primary and salvage procedures. Robot-assisted approach was the preferred option to treat most patients with recurrent PUJO in both groups.
References
Esposito C, Masieri L, Castagnetti M, Sforza S, Farina A, Cerulo M, Cini C, Del Conte F, Escolino M (2019) Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children with uretero-pelvic junction obstruction (UPJO): technical considerations and results. J Pediatr Urol 15(6):667.e1-667.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.09.018
So WZ, Tiong HY (2022) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy for persistent uretero-pelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction after failed renal pyeloplasty. Eur Urol Open Sci 37:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2021.12.001
Esposito C, Masieri L, Blanc T, Musleh L, Ballouhey Q, Fourcade L, Escolino M (2021) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) in children with complex pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction (PUJO): results of a multicenter European report. World J Urol 39(5):1641–1647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03331-8
Matlaga B, Shah O, Singh D, Streem S, Assimos D (2005) Ureterocalicostomy: a contemporary experience. Urology 65:42–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.08.024
Thomas JC, DeMarco RT, Donohoe JM, Adams MC, Pope JC IV, Brock JW III (2005) Management of failed pyeloplasty: a contemporary review. J Urol 174:2363–2366. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000180420.11915.31
Ansari MS, Danish N, Yadav P, Kaushik VN, Kakoti S, Kumar A, Banthia R, Srivastava A (2021) Role of ureterocalicostomy in management of giant hydronephrosis in children in contemporary practice: Indications, outcomes and challenges. J Pediatr Urol S1477–5131(21):00307–00317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.06.007
Mittal S, Aghababian A, Eftekharzadeh S, Saxena S, Janssen K, Lombardo A, Adamic B, Dinardo L, Weaver J, Fischer K, Andolfi C, Long C, Weiss D, Kirsch A, Srinivasan A, Gundeti M, Shukla AR (2022) Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy in the setting of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional cohort. J Urol 208(1):180–185. https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000002484
Ross JH, Streem SB, Novick AC, Kay R, Montie J (1990) Ureterocalicostomy for reconstruction of complicated pelviureteric junction obstruction. Br J Urol 65:322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.1990.tb14748.x
Neuwirt K (1948) Implantation of the ureter into the lower calyx of the renal pelvis. Urol Cutaneous Rev 52:351
Mittal S, Aghababian A, Eftekharzadeh S, Dinardo L, Weaver J, Weiss DA, Long C, Srinivasan AK, Shukla AR (2021) Primary vs redo robotic pyeloplasty: A comparison of outcomes. J Pediatr Urol 17(4):528.e1-528.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.02.016
Wang Q, Lu Y, Hu H, Zhang J, Qin B, Zhu J, Dirie NI, Zhang Z, Wang S (2019) Management of recurrent ureteral stricture: a retrospectively comparative study with robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open approach. Peer J 7:e8166. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8166
Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA (2006) Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 175:683–687 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)00183-7
Lobo S, Mushtaq I (2018) Laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy in children: The technique and feasibility. J Pediatr Urol 14(4):358–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.06.012
Casale P, Mucksavage P, Resnick M, Kim SS (2008) Robotic ureterocalicostomy in the pediatric population. J Urol 180(6):2643–2648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.08.052
Gill IS, Cherullo EE, Steinberg AP, Desai MM, Abreu SC, Ng C, Kaouk JH (2004) Laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy: initial experience. J Urol 171:1227–1230. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000114233.66534.b0
Korets R, Hyams ES, Shah OD, Stifelman MD (2007) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy. Urology 70:366–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.04.024
Radford AR, Thomas DF, Subramaniam R (2011) Ureterocalicostomy in children: 12 years experience in a single centre. BJU Int 108(3):434–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2010.09925.x
Nishimura Y, Moriya K, Nakamura M, Kitta T, Kanno Y, Chiba H, Kon M, Shinohara N (2017) Laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in a 10-year-old female patient: a case report. BMC Res Notes 10:247. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-2569-x
Lindgren BW, Hagerty J, Meyer T, Cheng EY (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair for failed pyeloplasty in children: a safe and highly effective treatment option. J Urol 188:932–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.04.118
Jacobson DL, Shannon R, Johnson EK, Gong EM, Liu DB, Flink CC, Meyer T, Cheng EY, Lindgren BW (2019) Robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair for failed pyeloplasty in children: an updated series. J Urol 201(5):1005–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.10.021
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181b13ca2
Rohrmann D, Snyder HM III, Duckett JW Jr, Canning DA, Zderic SA (1997) The operative management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 158:1257–1259. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005392-199709000-00154
Selli C, Carini M, Turini D, Masini G, Costantini A (1982) Experience with ureterocalyceal anastomosis. Urology 20:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(82)90527-1
Arap MA, Andrade H, Torricelli FC, Denes FT, Mitre AI, Duarte RJ, Srougi M (2014) Laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy for complicated upper urinary tract obstruction: mid-term follow-up. Int Urol Nephrol 46(5):865–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0591-z
Spinoit AF, Nguyen H, Subramaniam R (2017) Role of robotics in children: a brave new world! Eur Urol Focus 3(2–3):172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.08.011
Bilgutay AN, Kirsch AJ (2019) Robotic ureteral reconstruction in the pediatric population. Front Pediatr 7:85. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2019.00085
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: CE, ME; Methodology: TB, PJL, A-FS; Formal analysis and investigation: TB, LM, DP; Writing—original draft preparation: ME, CE; Writing—review and editing: ME, TB, PJL, A-FS; Supervision: CE, LM, DP.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Research involving Human Participants and/or Animals
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Esposito, C., Blanc, T., Patkowski, D. et al. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted ureterocalicostomy for treatment of primary and recurrent pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in children: a multicenter comparative study with laparoscopic and robot-assisted Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. Int Urol Nephrol 54, 2503–2509 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-022-03305-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-022-03305-2