Failed pyeloplasty in children: our experience and clinical characteristics / 中华泌尿外科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To summarize the clinical characteristics、diagnosis and treatment experience of children with reobstruction after pyeloplasty.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients admitted to the Department of Urology, Beijing Children's Hospital from January 2015 to April 2022. Due to the unrelieved hydronephroplasty after the primary pyeloplasty, the anterior and posterior diameter of the pelvis was larger than that before the primary operation. Intravenous pyelography and diuretic renal radionuclide scanning confirmed the diagnosis of ureteropelvic reobstruction. Or underwent reoperation after undergoing puncture angiography for reobstruction. Fifty-four children were included in the study, 47 males (87.03%) and 7 females (12.96%), with a median age of 51.67(21.30, 117.24)month, and, 38 cases (70.37%) on the left side and 16 cases (29.63%) on the right side. The primary operation was open pyeloplasty (POP) in 20 cases and laparoscopic pyeloplasty (PLP) in 34 cases. 45 patients underwent primary operation in our hospital, and 9 patients were referred from other hospitals after primary operation. The interval between reoperation and initial operation was 7.25(6.15, 15.40)month. There were 28 cases with clinical symptoms before operation, and 26 cases without symptoms but reobstruction on imaging. 21 cases presented with recurrent abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, and 7 cases presented with recurrent fever and urinary tract infection. All 54 patients underwent re-pyeloplasty after definite diagnosis of re-obstruction. In order to further study the feasibility of RLP, patients in the two groups were divided into RLP and ROP groups according to different surgical procedures. In the RLP group, there were 8 males (72.72%) and 3 females (27.28%). The median age was 82.21(49.83, 114.05) months, and obstruction was located on the left side in 8 cases (72.72%) and the right side in 3 cases (27.28%). There were 3 cases (27.28%) with POP and 8 cases (72.72%) with PLP. The time between the second operation and the primary operation was 12.83 (6.34, 16.86) months. APD before operation was 5.18 (4.25, 6.14) cm. There were 43 cases in the ROP group, including 38 males (88.37%) and 5 females (12.63%). The median age was 52.32 (26.62, 77.35) months; Obstruction was located on the left side in 31 cases (72.09%) and the right side in 12 cases (27.91%). The primary operation was performed in 19 cases (44.19%) with POP and 24 cases (55.81%) with PLP. The time between the second operation and the primary operation was 10.02 (8.03, 15.51) months. Preoperative APD was 5.42 (5.14, 5.90) cm. The causes of obstruction were found in the second operation: there were 28 causes (51.85%) of scar hyperplastic anastomotic stenosis, 7 cases (12.96%) of residual ectopic vascular compression, 8 cases (14.81%) of high ureteral anastomosis, 7 cases (12.96%) of ureteral adhesion distortion, and 4 cases (7.41%) of other causes (1 case of medical glue shell compression, 1 case of luminal polypoid hyperplasia, and 2 cases of complete luminal occlusion). Operation time, postoperative complications, APD, APD improvement rate (PI-APD), renal parenchyma thickness (PT), anteroposterior pelvis diameter/renal parenchyma thickness (APD/PT) at 3 and 6 months after operation were compared between RLP and ROP groups.Results:In this study, 54 patients were followed up with an average follow-up time of (34.41±20.20)month. APD of 3 months after pyeloplasty was 3.29(3.03, 3.52) cm, which was statistically significant compared with 5.45(5.13, 5.77)cm before pyeloplasty ( P=0.02). APD/PT changed from preoperative 21.71(21.08, 31.77)to 5.40(4.79, 6.79)3 months after surgery, and the difference was statistically significant ( P=0.03). The APD improvement rate was 37%(33%, 42%) 3 months after surgery and 49%(44%, 54%) 6 months after surgery. Among the 54 patients, 3 had lumbago and fever after clamping the nephrostomy tube, and 3(5.55%) had sinus angiography indicating that obstruction still existed and required reoperation. Therefore, the success rate of repyeloplasty in this group was 94.45%. Comparing RLP group and ROP group, operation time in RLP group was longer than that in ROP group [169.13(113.45, 210.66)]min vs. 106.83(103.14, 155.32)min, P=0.02]. The length of hospitalization in RLP group was shorter than that in ROP group [7.45(5.62, 9.28)d vs.11.64(10.45, 15.66)d, P=0.03], and the difference was statistically significant. The improvement rate of APD 3 months after surgery was compared between the two groups [30.48%(19.81%, 41.16%) vs.39.96%(35.16%, 47.76%), P=0.15], and the improvement rate of APD 6 months after surgery was compared between the two groups [48.00%(27.19%, 48.81%) vs.52.27%(46.95%, 56.76%), P=0.05], there was no significant difference in the success rate of operation between the two groups (90.90% vs. 95.34%, P=0.63). Conclusions:The common cause of reobstruction after pyeloplasty is cicatricial adhesion stenosis. The operation is challenging, but repyeloplasty can effectively relieve the obstruction and the overall success rate is 94.45%. RLP is a safe and effective surgical method for the treatment of reobstruction, which can achieve comparable surgical results with ROP.