Retrograde acucise endopyelotomy: is it worth its cost?
F Sofras1, K Livadas, G Alivizatos
12nd Dept of Urology, University of Athens Medical School, Sismanoglio Hospital, Athens, Greece. fsofras@med.uoa.gr
Purpose:
To identify patients with ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction who will benefit from endoscopic Acucise incision of the stenosis and to compare the open Hynes-Anderson pyeloplasty with this minimally invasive technique.
Patients And Methods:
In a prospective trial, 22 patients with primary and secondary UPJ obstruction were treated by Acucise endopyelotomy, and 18 patients were treated by Hynes-Anderson pyeloplasty. Preoperative and postoperative renal scans were used to determine the degree of obstruction and intravenous urography, ultrasound scanning, or both to assess the degree of dilation.
Results:
There was a vast difference in the cure rate of the two groups: Hynes-Anderson pyeloplasty cured 94.5% of the patients, while in the Acucise group, the cure rate was only 32%. There was some improvement in another 22% of the patients, but the renal scan curve remained obstructed. The remaining 45% of patients failed to show any improvement.
Conclusion:
Acucise endopyelotomy will improve or cure only patients with good renal function and mild dilation of the pelvicaliceal system. Patients with severe dilation should be treated by Hynes-Anderson pyeloplasty.
