Impact of drainage technique on pediatric pyeloplasty: Comparative analysis of externalized uretero-pyelostomy versus double-J internal stents
Keywords:pyeloplasty, stent, outcomes, ureteropelvic junction obstruction, hydronephrosis
Introduction: Pediatric pyeloplasty with double J (DJ) stent drainage requires manipulation of the uretero-vesical junction (UVJ) and a second anesthetic for removal. Externalized uretero-pyelostomy (EUP) stents avoid these issues. We report outcomes of laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty with EUP compared to DJ stents in children.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 76 consecutive children who underwent pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction over a 1-year period by 5 pediatric urologists at a single institution. The exclusion criteria included patients with concomitant urological procedures, other urinary drainage strategies, “stentless” pyeloplasty or patients without follow-up data. Based on surgeon preference, 24 patients had a EUP stent and 38 had a DJ stent placed.
Results: The mean follow-up was 23.8 ± 10.9 months and 21.1 ± 11.1 months for the EUP and DJ stent groups, respectively (p = 0.32). The mean age was 40 ± 54 months and 80 ± 78 months for the EUP and DJ groups, respectively (p = 0.04). The EUP group had a greater proportion of open pyeloplasties (n = 17, 71%) versus the DJ group (n = 16, 42%; p = 0.04). There were no statistically significant differences in operative time, length of stay, and overall complication rate between groups. Complications were divided by timing of complication (intraoperative, before and after 3 months) and according to the Clavien Classification system. There were no statistically significant differences between these subgroups. The limitations of this study include small sample size, potential selection bias, and heterogeneity between both study groups.
Conclusions: Pyeloplasty using EUP stents does not incur prolonged operative time, longer length of stay or higher complication rate when compared to DJ stents. Within the limitations of this study, EUP stents may be a safe alternative to DJ stents.
How to Cite
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.