Minimally Invasive Treatment of Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: A Critical Analysis of Results

Abstract

ObjectivesTo analyse the indications and long-term results of endoscopic and minimal access approaches for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction and to compare them to open surgery. MethodsA review of the literature from 1950 to January 2007 was conducted using the Ovid Medline database. ResultsA lack of standardisation of techniques used to diagnose UPJ obstruction and to follow up treated patients introduces a degree of inaccuracy in interpreting the success rates of the various modalities of treatment. However, there is no indication that any one of these techniques is affected by this to a greater or lesser extent than another. Open pyeloplasty achieves very good (90–100% success) results, endopyelotomy and balloon disruption of the UPJ fail to match these results by 15–20%, and minimal access pyeloplasty produces results that are at least as good as those of open surgery but with the advantages of a minimal access approach. ConclusionsMinimal access pyeloplasty is likely to gradually replace endopyelotomy and balloon disruption of the UPJ for the treatment of UPJ obstruction. The much higher cost of robotic pyeloplasty and greater availability of laparoscopic expertise in teaching centres are likely to limit the dissemination of robotic pyeloplasty.