Advertisement

Simultaneous treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction complicated by renal calculi with robotic laparoscopic surgery and flexible cystoscope

  • Cheng Yang
  • Jun Zhou
  • Zhao Xiang Lu
  • Zongyao Hao
  • Jianzhong Wang
  • Li zhang
  • Chaozhao LiangEmail author
Original Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

To present our experience of combining transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) and concomitant flexible cystoscope lithotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) complicated by renal caliceal stones in the same session.

Patients and methods

Between October 2014 and November 2017, RALP combined with flexible cystoscope lithotomy was performed in 16 patients with UPJO and ipsilateral renal caliceal stones. Stone location and size were preoperatively assessed. After pyelotomy with appropriate length (about 8–15 mm), a 16F flexible cystoscope through the assistant trocar or robotic trocar was introduced directly into the renal pelvis under laparoscopic vision. Holmium laser lithotripsy and pressure irrigation via a pump were used for caliceal stone removal. Subsequently, robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty was undergone in a standard fashion.

Results

The calculi sizes ranged from 5 to 34 mm (mean 18.6 mm) and an average of 3.4 stones per patient was removed (range 1–8 stones). Complete stone clearance confirmed by postoperative imaging was achieved in all patients. Mean operative time was 204.6 min and estimated blood loss was 55.6 mL. Mean hospital stay was 6.7 days (3–17). The stent was removed after 8 weeks. No major intraoperative or postoperative complications were noted during a mean follow-up of 10.4 months (range 6–27 months).

Conclusions

RALP combined with flexible cystoscope lithotomy is safe and effective alternatives for the simultaneous management of UPJO complicated by renal caliceal stones.

Keywords

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction Renal calculi Robotic surgery Flexible cystoscope 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81700662), Natural Science Research Project Funding of Higher Education Institutions of Anhui Province (No. KJ2016A349), Junior Research Project Funding of Anhui Natural Science Foundation (No. 1708085QH203).

Author contributions

CY, JZ and ZL contributed to data collection, data analysis and manuscript writing. ZH and JW took part in data collection and management. LZ involved in manuscript editing. CL contributed to project development and manuscript writing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The present study was approved by the Ethical Committee the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University.

Informed content

Informed consent was signed by the patients for the publication of related images and this report.

References

  1. 1.
    Skolarikos A, Dellis A, Knoll T (2015) Ureteropelvic obstruction and renal stones: etiology and treatment. Urolithiasis 43(1):5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stasinou T, Bourdoumis A, Masood J (2017) Forming a stone in pelviureteric junction obstruction: cause or effect? Int Braz J Urol 43(1):13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paik ML, Wainstein MA, Spirnak JP, Hampel N, Resnick MI (1998) Current indications for open stone surgery in the treatment of renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol 159(2):374–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Siddiq FM, Leveillee RJ, Villicana P, Bird VG (2005) Computer-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: university of Miami experience with the da Vinci Surgical System. J Endourol 19(3):387–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zheng J, Yan J, Zhou Z, Chen Z, Li X, Pan J, Li W (2014) Concomitant treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction and renal calculi with robotic laparoscopic surgery and rigid nephroscopy. Urology 83(1):237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Uberoi J, Disick GI, Munver R (2009) Minimally invasive surgical management of pelvic-ureteric junction obstruction: update on the current status of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. BJU Int 104(11):1722–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nayyar R, Gupta NP, Hemal AK (2010) Robotic management of complicated ureteropelvic junction obstruction. World J Urol 28(5):599–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scardino PT, Scardino PL (1981) Obstruction at the ureteropelvic junction. In: Bergman H (ed) The ureter. Springer, New York, pp 697–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, Chen RN, Iverson AJ, Kavoussi LR (1999) Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol 162(3 Pt 1):692–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agarwal A, Varshney A, Bansal BS (2008) Concomitant percutaneous nephrolithotomy and transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction complicated by stones. J Endourol 22(10):2251–2255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knudsen BE, Cook AJ, Watterson JD, Beiko DT, Nott L, Razvi H, Denstedt JD (2004) Percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy: long-term results from one institution. Urology 63(2):230–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rutchik SD, Resnick MI (1998) Ureteropelvic junction obstruction and renal calculi. Pathophysiology and implications for management. Urol Clin N Am 25(2):317–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eden CG (2007) Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a critical analysis of results. Eur Urol 52(4):983–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM (1993) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 150(6):1795–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kavoussi LR, Peters CA (1993) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 150(6):1891–1894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramakumar S, Lancini V, Chan DY, Parsons JK, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW (2002) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with concomitant pyelolithotomy. J Urol 167(3):1378–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ball AJ, Leveillee RJ, Patel VR, Wong C (2004) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty and flexible nephroscopy: simultaneous treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction and nephrolithiasis. JSLS 8(3):223–228PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Srivastava A, Singh P, Gupta M, Ansari MS, Mandhani A, Kapoor R, Kumar A, Dubey D (2008) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with concomitant pyelolithotomy—is it an effective mode of treatment? Urol Int 80(3):306–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen Z, Zhou P, Yang ZQ, Li Y, Luo YC, He Y, Li NN, Xie CQ, Lai C, Fang XL, Chen X (2013) Transperitoneal mini-laparoscopic pyeloplasty and concomitant ureteroscopy-assisted pyelolithotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction complicated by renal caliceal stones. PLoS ONE 8(1):e55026.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055026 (Epub 2013 Jan 9) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Słojewski M (2014) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with concomitant pyelolithotomy—too much of a good thing. Cent Eur J Urol 66(4):445.  https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2013.04.art14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hopf HL, Bahler CD, Sundaram CP (2016) Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 90:106–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Atug F, Castle EP, Burgess SV, Thomas R (2005) Concomitant management of renal calculi and pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction with robotic laparoscopic surgery. BJU Int 96(9):1365–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nayyar R, Singh P, Gupta NP (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty with stone removal in an ectopic pelvic kidney. JSLS 14(1):130–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kreydin EI, Eisner BH (2013) Risk factors for sepsis after percutaneous renal stone surgery. Nat Rev Urol 10:598–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Palese MA, Stifelman MD, Munver R, Sosa RE, Philipps CK, Dinlenc C, Del Pizzo JJ (2005) Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: a combined experience. J Endourol 19(3):382–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hanske J, Sanchez A, Schmid M, Meyer CP, Abdollah F, Roghmann F, Feldman AS, Kibel AS, Sammon JD, Noldus J, Trinh QD, Eswara JR (2015) Comparison of 30-day perioperative outcomes in adults undergoing open versus minimally invasive pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: analysis of 593 patients in a prospective national database. World J Urol 33(12):2107–2113CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cheng Yang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jun Zhou
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhao Xiang Lu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zongyao Hao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jianzhong Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Li zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chaozhao Liang
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of UrologyThe First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical UniversityHefeiChina
  2. 2.Institute of Urology and Anhui Province Key Laboratory of Genitourinary DiseasesAnhui Medical UniversityHefeiChina

Personalised recommendations