Pyeloplasty is the gold standard procedure for treating ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO), but the occurrence of postoperative complications is a major challenge. This study aimed to identify the predictors of postpyeloplasty complications, which are not well characterized in contemporary literature.
Study Design:
We retrospectively analyzed data of children who underwent pyeloplasty in our hospital from January 2011 to August 2022, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published from 2000 to 2023 was performed to identify predictors of complications.
Results:
In cohort studies (n = 555), preoperative urinary tract infection (pre-UTI) (odds ratio [OR] = 5.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.96–10.78, p < 0.001), Double J-stent duration (OR = 1.005, 95% CI: 1.001–1.008, p = 0.005), renal cortical thickness (OR = 0.181, 95% CI: 0.071–0.461, p < 0.001), and collection system separation (OR = 1.170, 95% CI: 1.017–1.347, p = 0.028) were associated with total postoperative complications. Pre-UTI (OR = 4.87, 95% CI: 1.98–11.98, p = 0.001), Double J-stent duration (OR = 1.005, 95% CI: 1.001–1.009, p = 0.019), preoperative renal cortical thickness (OR = 0.197, 95% CI: 0.042–0.928, p = 0.040), and duration of operation (OR = 1.013, 95% CI: 1.003–1.022, p = 0.008) were associated with recurrence. Pre-UTI (OR = 5.33, 95% CI: 2.73–10.38, p < 0.001) and preoperative renal cortical thickness (OR = 0.351, 95% CI: 0.124–0.990, p = 0.048) were predictors of postoperative UTI. In the meta-analysis, sex (I2= 0%, relative risk [RR] = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.01–1.40, p = 0.04), operation methods, and split renal function (I2= 50%, RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59–0.96, p = 0.02) were identified as predictors of postoperative complications.
Conclusions:
We identified the predictors of postpyeloplasty complications. Early identification and treatment can help us reduce the incidence of complications.
JainV, AgarwalaS, BhatnagarV, GuptaAK, KumarR, BalCS. Long term outcome of management of antenatally diagnosed pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Indian J Pediatr, 2012; 79(6):769–773; doi: 10.1007/s12098-011-0546-2
2.
ChertinB, PollackA, KoulikovD, et al.Conservative treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children with antenatal diagnosis of hydronephrosis: Lessons learned after 16 years of follow-up. Eur Urol, 2006; 49(4):734–738; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.01.046
3.
LiuX, HuangC, GuoY, YueY, HongJ. Comparison of DJ stented, external stented and stent-less procedures for pediatric pyeloplasty: A network meta-analysis. Int J Surg, 2019; 68:126–133; doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.07.001
4.
NguyenHT, HerndonCDA, CooperC, et al.The society for fetal urology consensus statement on the evaluation and management of antenatal hydronephrosis. J Pediatr Urol, 2010; 6(3):212–231; doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2010.02.205
5.
KohnoM, OgawaT, KojimaY, et al.Pediatric congenital hydronephrosis (ureteropelvic junction obstruction): Medical management guide. Int J Urol, 2020; 27(5):369–376; doi: 10.1111/iju.14207
6.
KhanF, AhmedK, LeeN, ChallacombeB, KhanMS, DasguptaP. Management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. Nat Rev Urol, 2014; 11(11):629–638; doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2014.240
7.
PassoniNM, PetersCA. Managing ureteropelvic junction obstruction in the young infant. Front Pediatr, 2020; 8:242; doi: 10.3389/fped.2020.00242
AutorinoR, EdenC, El-GhoneimiA, et al.Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol, 2014; 65(2):430–452; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.06.053
10.
BachmannA, RuszatR, ForsterT, et al.Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO): Solving the technical difficulties. Eur Urol, 2006; 49(2):264–272; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.036
11.
MathewG, AghaR, AlbrechtJ, et al.; STROCSS Group. STROCSS 2021: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery. Int J Surg, 2021; 96:106165; doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106165
12.
LiberatiA, AltmanDG, TetzlaffJ, et al.The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 2009; 339:b2700; doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700
13.
SheaBJ, ReevesBC, WellsG, et al.AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 2017; 358:j4008; doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008
14.
StangA. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol, 2010; 25(9):603–605; doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
NehemanA, KordE, ZismanA, DarawshaAE, NohPH. Comparison of robotic pyeloplasty and standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants: A Bi-institutional study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2018; 28(4):467–470; doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0262
17.
BansalD, CostNG, DeFoorWR, et al.Infant robotic pyeloplasty: Comparison with an open cohort. J Pediatr Urol, 2014; 10(2):380–385; doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2013.10.016
18.
YeeDS, ShanbergAM, DuelBP, RodriguezE, EichelL, RajpootD. Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. Urology, 2006; 67(3):599–602; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.09.021
19.
LiuD, ZhouH, MaL, et al.Transumbilical multi-port laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus transumbilical single-site laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: A retrospectively comparative study. J Pediatr Urol, 2017; 13(6):618.e611–618.e615; doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2017.05.009
20.
RiachyE, CostNG, DefoorWR, ReddyPP, MinevichEA, NohPH. Pediatric standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: A comparative single institution study. J Urol, 2013; 189(1):283–287; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.008
21.
CeyhanE, IleriF, CeylanT, AydinAM, DoganHS, TekgulS. Predictors of recurrence and complications in pediatric pyeloplasty. Urology, 2019; 126:187–191; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.01.014
22.
Zu’biF, O’KellyF, FarhatWA, ChuaM, ShiffM, GaoB, et al.Recurrent UPJ obstruction following paediatric pyeloplasty is associated with an initial <2.5cm incision open surgical approach. Urology, 2022; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.08.017
23.
GrimsbyGM, JacobsMA, GargolloPC. Success of laparoscopic robot-assisted approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction based on preoperative renal function. J Endourol, 2015; 29(8):874–877; doi: 10.1089/end.2014.0876
24.
ChaiH, ZhouY, WangJ, ShuF, GuoF. Logistic regression analysis of risk factors for complications in children with hydronephrosis. J Clin Mil Med, 2019; 47(11):1268–1269+1275.Chinese; doi: 10.16680/j.1671-3826.2019.11.40
25.
MeiH, ZhaoX, LiD, et al.Comparison of transumbilical multiport and standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: Mid-term results at a single center. J Pediatr Surg, 2017; 52(3):473–477; doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.08.013
26.
WangH, HaoC, BaiD. Risk factors of urinary tract infection in pediatric patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction after primary unilateral pyeloplasty. Comput Math Methods Med, 2022; 2022:3482450; doi: 10.1155/2022/3482450
27.
FrancoI, DyerLL, ZelkovicP. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient: Hand sewn anastomosis versus robotic assisted anastomosis–is there a difference? J Urol, 2007; 178(4 Pt 1):1483–1486; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.06.012
28.
JiaJ, MengQ, ZhangM, QiJ, WangD. A comparative study on the efficacy of retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty and open surgery for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Pak J Med Sci, 2021; 37(7):1768–1774; doi: 10.12669/pjms.37.7.4205
29.
BarbosaJA, KowalA, OnalB, et al.Comparative evaluation of the resolution of hydronephrosis in children who underwent open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol, 2013; 9(2):199–205; doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.02.002
30.
Amón SesmeroJH, del Valle GonzálezN, Rodríguez TovesLA, Conde RedondoC, Rodríguez TesedoV, Martínez-Sagarra OcejaJM. [Long-term follow-up of antegrade endopyelotomy. Factors that influence the outcome]. Actas Urol Esp, 2009; 33(1):64–68; doi: 10.1016/s0210-4806(09)74004-5
31.
KimJ, ParkS, HwangH, et al.Comparison of surgical outcomes between dismembered pyeloplasty with or without ureteral stenting in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Korean J Urol, 2012; 53(8):564–568; doi: 10.4111/kju.2012.53.8.564
32.
SmithKE, HolmesN, LiebJI, et al.Stented versus nonstented pediatric pyeloplasty: A modern series and review of the literature. J Urol, 2002; 168(3):1127–1130; doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64607-1
33.
SunL, ZhaoD, ShenY, et al.Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted pyeloplasty in infants and young children. Asian J Surg, 2023; 46(2):868–873; doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2022.09.046
34.
BragaLHP, LorenzoAJ, BägliDJ, et al.Risk factors for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after open pyeloplasty in a large pediatric cohort. J Urol, 2008; 180(4 Suppl):1684–1687; discussion 1687-1688; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.086
35.
SilayMS, SpinoitAF, UndreS, et al.Global minimally invasive pyeloplasty study in children: Results from the pediatric urology expert group of the European association of urology young academic urologists working party. J Pediatr Urol, 2016; 12(4):229.e221–229.e227; doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.04.007
36.
SorensenMD, DelostrinosC, JohnsonMH, GradyRW, LendvayTS. Comparison of the learning curve and outcomes of robotic assisted pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol, 2011; 185(6 Suppl):2517–2522; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.01.021
37.
SilayMS, DanaciogluO, OzelK, KaramanMI, CaskurluT. Laparoscopy versus robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in children: Preliminary results of a pilot prospective randomized controlled trial. World J Urol, 2020; 38(8):1841–1848; doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02910-8
38.
ChaoM, YinZ, DengxinF, LongT, CaiY, ZhangW, et al.Application and comparative analysis of the transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site three-port pyeloplasty and conventional transperitoneal laparoendoscopic pyeloplasty in children. Acta Universitatis Medicinal-Ics Anhui, 2016; 51(06):860–864. Chinese.
39.
BaekM, SilayMS, AuJK, et al.Does the use of 5 mm instruments affect the outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in smaller working spaces? A comparative analysis of infants and older children. J Pediatr Urol, 2018; 14(6):537.e531–537.e536; doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.06.010
40.
DanglePP, KearnsJ, AndersonB, GundetiMS. Outcomes of infants undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty compared to open repair. J Urol, 2013; 190(6):2221–2226; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.07.063
41.
AshayP, PickhardtMW, LittlejohnN, ZamilpaI, RettigantiM, LuoC, et al.Shortened operative time for pediatric robotic versus laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Can J Urol, 2016; 23(3):8308–8311.
42.
Bragagnini RodríguezP, Stors SastreB, Fernández AtuanR, Delgado AlviraR, Rihuete HerasMA, Gracia RomeroJ. [Efficacy of the retroperitoneal-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus the mini posterior lumbotomy approach]. Cir Pediatr, 2015; 28(2):49–54.
43.
MurthyP, CohnJA, GundetiMS. Evaluation of robotic-assisted laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children: Single-surgeon experience. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 2015; 97(2):109–114; doi: 10.1308/003588414X14055925058797
44.
LeeRS, RetikAB, BorerJG, PetersCA. Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: Comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol, 2006; 175(2):683–687; discussion 687; doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00183-7
45.
BonnardA, FouquetV, CarricaburuE, AigrainY, El-GhoneimiA. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. J Urol, 2005; 173(5):1710–1713; discussion 1713; doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000154169.74458.32
46.
LiuD, ZhouH, MaL, et al.Comparison of laparoscopic approaches for dismembered pyeloplasty in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Critical analysis of 11-year experiences in a single surgeon. Urology, 2017; 101:50–55; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.10.007
47.
El-GoharyMA. Laparoscopically assisted pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A transperitoneal versus a retroperitoneal approach. Ann Pediatr Surg, 2012; 8(2):29–31; doi: 10.1097/01.XPS.0000412874.01359.c8
48.
van der ToornF, van den HoekJ, WolffenbuttelKP, ScheepeJR. 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; doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.01.007
PennHA, GattiJM, HoestjeSM, DeMarcoRT, SnyderCL, MurphyJP. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children: Preliminary report of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol, 2010; 184(2):690–695; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.062
51.
RavishIR, NerliRB, ReddyMN, AmarkhedSS. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty compared with open pyeloplasty in children. J Endourol, 2007; 21(8):897–902; doi: 10.1089/end.2006.0411
52.
VallaJS, BreaudJ, GriffinSJ, et al.Retroperitoneoscopic vs open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. J Pediatr Urol, 2009; 5(5):368–373; doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2009.02.202
53.
PiaggioLA, Franc-GuimondJ, NohPH, et al.Transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in infants and children: Comparison with open surgery. J Urol, 2007; 178(4 Pt 2):1579–1583; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.159
54.
WangL, QinW, TianF, ZhangG, YuanJ, WangH. Cytokine responses following laparoscopic or open pyeloplasty in children. Surg Endosc, 2009; 23(3):544–549; doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-9859-2
55.
BragaLHP, LorenzoAJ, BägliDJ, et al.Comparison of flank, dorsal lumbotomy and laparoscopic approaches for dismembered pyeloplasty in children older than 3 years with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol, 2010; 183(1):306–311; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.09.008
56.
SongSH, LeeC, JungJ, KimSJ, ParkS, ParkH, et al.A comparative study of pediatric open pyeloplasty, laparoscopy-assisted extracorporeal pyeloplasty, and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. PLoS One, 2017; 12(4):e0175026; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175026
57.
SukumarS, RoghmannF, SoodA, et al.Correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: National trends and comparative effectiveness in operative outcomes. J Endourol, 2014; 28(5):592–598; doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0618
58.
CitgezS, DemirdagC, OzmanO, OzdenSB, DerekoyluE, OnalB. Comparison of a modified antegrade and retrograde ureteral double-J stenting techniques during laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty. Urol Int, 2020; 104(1–2):87–93; doi: 10.1159/000503157
59.
Pérez-BertólezS, Martín-SoléO, García-AparicioL. Comparison between mini-laparoscopy, conventional laparoscopy and open approach for ureteropelvic junction obstruction treatment in children. Scand J Urol, 2021; 55(4):307–312; doi: 10.1080/21681805.2021.1948098
60.
CanonSJ, JayanthiVR, LoweGJ. Which is better–retroperitoneoscopic or laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children? J Urol, 2007; 178(4 Pt 2):1791–1795; discussion 1795; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.200
61.
KimS, CanterDJ, LeoneNT, PatelRP, CasaleP. A comparative study between laparoscopic and robotically assisted pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. J Urol, 2008; 179(4S):357; doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(08)61045-9
62.
JuSH, LeeD-G, LeeJH, et al.Laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty using additional 2 mm instruments: A comparison with conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Korean J Urol, 2011; 52(9):616–621; doi: 10.4111/kju.2011.52.9.616
63.
BlancT, AbboO, VattaF, et al.Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. A multicentre, prospective study. Eur Urol Open Sci, 2022; 41:134–140; doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.05.009
64.
SuboticU, RohardI, WeberDM, GobetR, MoehrlenU, GonzalezR. A minimal invasive surgical approach for children of all ages with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Pediatr Urol, 2012; 8(4):354–358; doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2011.07.004
65.
VemulakondaVM, WilcoxDT, CrombleholmeTM, BronsertM, KempeA. Factors associated with age at pyeloplasty in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Pediatr Surg Int, 2015; 31(9):871–877; doi: 10.1007/s00383-015-3748-2
66.
WangY. The comparison of two urine drainage methods after anderson-hynes pyeloplasty. Master’s thesis. Xinxiang Medical College: Xinxiang; 2018. Chinese.
67.
TamYH, PangKKY, WongYS, ChanKW, LeeKH. From laparoscopic pyeloplasty to robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in primary and reoperative repairs for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2018; 28(8):1012–1018; doi: 10.1089/lap.2017.0561
68.
HeY, SongH, LiuP, et al.Primary laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: A single-center experience of 279 patients and analysis of possible factors affecting complications. J Pediatr Urol, 2020; 16(3):331.e331–331.e311; doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2020.03.028
69.
MinliZ, TianG, YuanS, ZhangS, LiL, FanY. Analysis and management of complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. Chin J Pediatr Surg, 2020; 41:813–818; doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn421158-20200223-00112
70.
KejianS, WangZ, ChenK, WangX, ZhaoY. Comparison between internal stent and external stent drainage for pyeloplasty. Chin J Urol, 2004; 25(1):24–26.
71.
ZouariM, DghaiesR, RhaiemW, et al.Risk factors for adverse outcomes after pediatric pyeloplasty: A retrospective cohort study. Int J Urol, 2024; 31(1):45–50; doi: 10.1111/iju.15305
72.
WangJ, CaoY, ZhangL, LiuG, LiC. Pathogen distribution and risk factors for urinary tract infection in infants and young children with retained double-J catheters. J Int Med Res, 2021; 49(5); doi: 10.1177/03000605211012379
73.
PengC, ChenZ, XuJ. Risk factors for urinary infection after retrograde upper urinary lithotripsy: Implication for nursing. Medicine (Baltimore), 2021; 100(31):e26172; doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026172
74.
GuJ, ChenX, YangZ, BaiY, ZhangX. Gender differences in the microbial spectrum and antibiotic sensitivity of uropathogens isolated from patients with urinary stones. J Clin Lab Anal, 2022; 36(1):e24155; doi: 10.1002/jcla.24155
75.
DeyS, RamanVS, PeelaT, ChandK, ChandraN. Comparison of outcomes between 2 week versus 4 week stenting in pediatric pyeloplasty-A single centre observational study. Asian J Urol, 2020; 7(4):327–331; doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2019.10.011
76.
BabuR, RathishVR, SaiV. Functional outcomes of early versus delayed pyeloplasty in prenatally diagnosed pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. J Pediatr Urol, 2015; 11(2):63.e61–63.e5; doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.10.007
77.
CasciniV, LauritiG, Di RenzoD, MisciaME, LisiG. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction in infants: Open or minimally invasive surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pediatr, 2022; 10:1052440; doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.1052440
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
