Key Points
-
Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is an obstructive entity resulting from multiple aetiological factors resulting in impaired flow of urine from the renal pelvis to the ureter
-
Diagnosis is based on clinical and radiological manifestations of UPJO. Contrast-enhanced CT and diuretic renography are required for confirmation of anatomical and functional obstruction, respectively
-
Surgical intervention is indicated for symptoms of obstruction and impaired split renal function. Dismembered repair is the most widely used technique and can be modified for the majority of ureteropelvic junctions
-
Endoscopic management has the advantages of shorter hospital stay and postoperative convalescence. Although initially promising, success rates do not support the use of endoscopic procedures over open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted pyeloplasty
-
Laparoscopic pyeloplasty has a low perioperative morbidity and complication rate. Although providing early durable results, intracorporeal suturing remains technically challenging and has paved the way for robot-assisted pyeloplasty
-
Robot-assisted pyeloplasty has ergonomic benefits resulting in ease of dissection and subsequent suturing with success rates of >95%. Robotic systems are reserved for tertiary centres because they have high purchase and maintenance costs
Abstract
Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is characterized by impaired flow of urine from the renal pelvis to the ureter. Untreated disease can result in renal impairment making effective management crucial. A combination of CT imaging and diuretic renography is typically used for diagnosis. CT is the investigation of choice for obtaining anatomical information about UPJO and can help to identify potential causes. Diuretic renography is best for providing functional information about UPJO. A variety of open and minimally invasive surgical techniques are available for treatment of UPJO. Traditionally open pyeloplasty has been the standard of care but minimally invasive surgical techniques have become increasingly popular. Endopyelotomy has a lower success rate than other modalities (42–90% depending on the approach), but is associated with reduced pain and shorter convalescence. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty and robot-assisted pyeloplasty have similar success rates to open pyeloplasty (>90%), with the additional advantages of significantly reduced morbidity and shorter convalescence. More long-term outcome data for minimally invasive surgical techniques are awaited.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cohen, B., Goldman, S. M., Kopilnick, M., Khurana, A. V. & Salik, J. O. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: its occurrence in 3 members of a single family. J. Urol. 120, 361–364 (1978).
Thomas, A. K. & June, C. H. The promise of T-lymphocyte immunotherapy for the treatment of malignant disease. Cancer J. 7 (Suppl. 2), S67–S75 (2001).
Sepulveda, L. & Rodrigues, F. Giant hydronephrosis—a late diagnosis of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. World J. Nephrol. & Urol. 2, 33–35 (2013).
Bauer, S. B. in Campbell's Urology 7th edn (eds Walsh, P. W., Retik, A. B., Vaughan, E. D. Jr & Wein, A. J.) 1739–1749 (WB Saunders Company, 1998).
Park, J. M. & Bloom, D. A. The pathophysiology of UPJ obstruction. Current concepts. Urol. Clin. North Am. 25, 161–169 (1998).
Riehle, R. A. Jr & Vaughan, E. D. Jr. Renin participation in hypertension associated with unilateral hydronephrosis. J. Urol. 126, 243–246 (1981).
Sohn, B., Kim, M., Han, S. W., Im, Y. & Lee, M. Shear wave velocity measurements using acoustic radiation force impulse in young children with normal kidneys versus hydronephrotic kidneys. Ultrasonography 33, 116–121 (2014).
Jacobs, J. A., Berger, B. W., Goldman, S. M., Robbins, M. A. & Young, J. D. Jr. Ureteropelvic obstruction in adults with previously normal pyelograms: a report of 5 cases. J. Urol. 121, 242–244 (1979).
El-Nahas, A. R. et al. Role of multiphasic helical computed tomography in planning surgical treatment for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. BJU Int. 94, 582–587 (2004).
Lam, J. S., Breda, A. & Schulam, P. G. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J. Urol. 177, 1652–1658 (2007).
Patel, V. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 66, 45–49 (2005).
Roarke, M. C. & Sandler, C. M. Provocative imaging. Diuretic renography. Urol. Clin. North Am. 25, 227–249 (1998).
O'Reilly, P. H., Lawson, R. S., Shields, R. A. & Testa, H. J. Idiopathic hydronephrosis—the diuresis renogram: a new non-invasive method of assessing equivocal pelvioureteral junction obstruction. J. Urol. 121, 153–155 (1979).
Mikkelsen, S. S., Rasmussen, B. S., Jensen, T. M., Hanghoj-Petersen, W. & Christensen, P. O. Long-term follow-up of patients with hydronephrosis treated by Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. Br. J. Urol. 70, 121–124 (1992).
Arun, N., Kekre, N. S., Nath, V. & Gopalakrishnan, G. Is open pyeloplasty still justified? Br. J. Urol. 80, 379–381 (1997).
Jarrett, T. W., Chan, D. Y., Charambura, T. C., Fugita, O. & Kavoussi, L. R. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J. Urol. 167, 1253–1256 (2002).
Bratt, C. G., Aurell, M. & Nilsson, S. Renal function in patients with hydronephrosis. Br. J. Urol. 49, 249–255 (1977).
Poulakis, V., Witzsch, U., Schultheiss, D., Rathert, P. & Becht, E. History of ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair (pyeloplasty). From Trendelenburg (1886) to the present [German]. Urologe A 43, 1544–1559 (2004).
Wolf, J. S. Laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty. J. Endourol. 25, 173–178 (2011).
Grasso, M., Caruso, R. P. & Philipps, C. K. UPJ obstruction in the adult population: are crossing vessels significant? Rev. Urol. 3, 42–51 (2001).
Foley, F. E. A new plastic operation for stricture at the uretero-pelvic junction. Report of 20 operations. 1937. J. Urol. 167, 1075–1095 (2002).
Culp, O. S. & DeWeerd, J. H. A pelvic flap operation for certain types of UPJ obstruction: Preliminary report. Proc. Staff Meet. Mayo Clin. 26, 483–488 (1951).
Scardino, P. L. & Prince, C. L. Vertical flap ureteropelvioplasty: Prelimary report. South Med. J. 46, 325–331 (1953).
O'Reilly, P. H. et al. The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 87, 287–289 (2001).
Gogus, C. et al. Long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty in 180 adults in the era of endourologic procedures. Urol. Int. 73, 11–14 (2004).
Simforoosh, N. et al. A comparision between laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J. Endourol. 1, 165–169 (2004).
Davis, D. M. Intubated ureterotomy: a new operation for ureteral and ureteropelvis stricture. J. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 76, 513–514 (1943).
Gupta, M., Tuncay, O. L. & Smith, A. D. Open surgical exploration after failed endopyelotomy: a 12-year perspective. J. Urol. 157, 1613–1618 (1997).
Wickham, J. E. & Kellet, M. J. Percutaneous pyelolysis. Eur. Urol. 9, 122–124 (1983).
Badlani, G. H. & Smith, A. D. Percutaneous ureteral surgery. Semin. Urol. 4, 191–197 (1986).
Korth, K., Kuenkel, M. & Erschig, M. Percutaneous pyeloplasty. Urology 31, 503–509 (1988).
Sampaio, F. J. Vascular anatomy at the ureteropelvic junction. Urol. Clin. North Am. 25, 251–258 (1998).
Streem, S. B. Percutaneous endopyelotomy. Urol. Clin. North Am. 27, 685–693 (2000).
Giddens, J. L., Grotas, A. B. & Grasso, M. Stone granuloma causes ureteropelvic junction obstruction after percutaneous nephrolithotomy and antegrade endopyelotomy. J. Urol. 164, 118–119 (2000).
Bagley, D. H., Huffman, J., Lyon, E. & McNamara, T. Endoscopic ureteropyelostomy: opening the obliterated ureteropelvic junction with nephroscopy and flexible ureteropyeloscopy. J. Urol. 133, 462–464 (1985).
Nadler, R. B., Rao, G. S., Pearle, M. S., Nakada, S. Y. & Clayman, R. V. Acucise endopyelotomy: assessment of long-term durability. J. Urol. 156, 1094–1097 (1996).
Osther, P. J., Geertsen, U. & Nielsen, H. V. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction and ureteral strictures treated by simple high-pressure balloon dilation. J. Endourol. 12, 429–431 (1998).
Chandhoke, P. S. et al. Endopyelotomy and endoureterotomy with the acucise ureteral cutting balloon device: preliminary experience. J. Endourol. 7, 45–51 (1993).
Symons, S. J. et al. Minimally invasive surgical options for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A significant step in the right direction. Indian J. Urol. 25, 27–33 (2009).
Kletscher, B. A., Segura, J. W., LeRoy, A. J. & Patterson, D. E. Percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy: review of 50 consecutive cases. J. Urol. 153, 701–703 (1995).
Shalhav, A. L. et al. Adult endopyelotomy: impact of etiology and antegrade versus retrograde approach on outcome. J. Urol. 160, 685–689 (1998).
Vaarala, M. H., Marttila, T., Paananen, I. & Hellstrom, P. Retrospective analysis of long-term outcomes of 64 patients treated by endopyelotomy in two low-volume hospitals: good and durable results. J. Endourol. 22, 1659–1664 (2008).
Butani, R. P. & Eshghi, M. Cold-knife retrograde endopyelotomy: a long-term follow-up. J. Endourol. 22, 657–660 (2008).
Ost, M. C., Kaye, J. D., Guttman, M. J., Lee, B. R. & Smith, A. D. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus antegrade endopyelotomy: comparison in 100 patients and a new algorithm for the minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 66, 47–51 (2005).
Mandhani, A. et al. Is a 2-week duration sufficient for stenting in endopyelotomy? J. Urol. 169, 886–889 (2003).
Danuser, H., Hochreiter, W. W., Ackermann, D. K. & Studer, U. E. Influence of stent size on the success of antegrade endopyelotomy for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: results of 2 consecutive series. J. Urol. 166, 902–909 (2001).
Wolf, J. S. Jr, Elashry, O. M. & Clayman, R. V. Long-term results of endoureterotomy for benign ureteral and ureteroenteric strictures. J. Urol. 158, 759–764 (1997).
Gettman, M. T. & Segura, J. W. Technique of percutaneous endopyelotomy. Braz. J. Urol. 26, 64–70 (2000).
Kim, F. J., Herrell, S. D., Jahoda, A. E. & Albala, D. M. Complications of acucise endopyelotomy. J. Endourol. 12, 433–436 (1998).
Badlani, G., Karlin, G. & Smith, A. D. Complications of endopyelotomy: analysis in series of 64 patients. J. Urol. 140, 473–475 (1988).
Schuessler, W. W., Grune, M. T., Tecuanhuey, L. V. & Preminger, G. M. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J. Urol. 150, 1795–1799 (1993).
Turk, I. et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty—the method of choice in the presence of an enlarged renal pelvis and crossing vessels. Eur. Urol. 42, 268–275 (2002).
Ahmed, K. et al. Effectiveness of procedural simulation in urology: a systematic review. J. Urol. 186, 26–34 (2011).
Samarasekera, D. & Chew, B. Endopyelotomy still has an important role in the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 5, 134–136 (2011).
Inagaki, T., Rha, K. H., Ong, A. M., Kavoussi, L. R. & Jarrett, T. W. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. BJU Int. 95 (Suppl. 2), 102–105 (2005).
El-Shazly, M. A., Moon, D. A. & Eden, C. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: status and review of literature. J. Endourol. 21, 673–678 (2007).
Szydelko, T. et al. Antegrade endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. A 19, 45–51 (2009).
Rassweiler, J. J. et al. Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: long-term experience with an algorithm for laser endopyelotomy and laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty. J. Urol. 177, 1000–1005 (2007).
Moon, D. A., El-Shazly, M. A., Chang, C. M., Gianduzzo, T. R. & Eden, C. G. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: evolution of a new gold standard. Urology 67, 932–936 (2006).
Romero, F. R. et al. Transmesenteric laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J. Urol. 176, 2526–2529 (2006).
Symons, S. J., Bhirud, P. S., Jain, V., Shetty, A. S. & Desai, M. R. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: our new gold standard. J. Endourol. 23, 463–467 (2009).
Srivastava, A. et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a versatile alternative to open pyeloplasty. Urol. Int. 83, 420–424 (2009).
Rassweiler, J. J., Teber, D. & Frede, T. Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. World J. Urol. 26, 539–547 (2008).
Shao, P. et al. Comparison of two different suture methods in laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urol. Int. 87, 304–308 (2011).
Szydelko, T. et al. Clavien classification of complications after 150 laparoscopic pyeloplasties. Urology 77, 1359–1364 (2011).
Lopez-Pujals, A., Leveillee, R. J. & Wong, C. Application of strict radiologic criteria to define success in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J. Endourol. 18, 756–760 (2004).
Maynes, L. J., Levin, B. M., Webster, T. M., Baldwin, D. & Herrell, S. D. Measuring the true success of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J. Endourol. 22, 1193–1198 (2008).
Soulie, M. et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty with a minimal incision: comparison of two surgical approaches. Urology 57, 443–447 (2001).
Gettman, M. T., Peschel, R., Neururer, R. & Bartsch, G. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur. Urol. 42, 453–457 (2002).
Madi, R., Roberts, W. W. & Wolf, J. S. Jr. Late failures after laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Urology 71, 677–680 (2008).
Tan, H. J., Ye, Z., Roberts, W. W. & Wolf, J. S. Failure after laparoscopic pyeloplasty: prevention and management. J. Endourol. 25, 1457–1462 (2011).
Sung, G. T., Gill, I. S. & Hsu, T. H. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a pilot study. Urology 53, 1099–1103 (1999).
Palese, M. A. et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. JSLS 9, 252–257 (2005).
Mufarrij, P. W., Shah, O. D., Berger, A. D. & Stifelman, M. D. Robotic reconstruction of the upper urinary tract. J. Urol. 178, 2002–2005 (2007).
Bernie, J. E., Venkatesh, R., Brown, J., Gardner, T. A. & Sundaram, C. P. Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without robotic assistance. JSLS 9, 258–261 (2005).
Kaouk, J. H. et al. Is retroperitoneal approach feasible for robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: initial experience and long-term results. J. Endourol. 22, 2153–2159 (2008).
Schwentner, C. et al. Robotic Anderson–Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Int. 100, 880–885 (2007).
Etafy, M. et al. Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience. J. Urol. 185, 2196–2200 (2011).
Nayyar, R., Gupta, N. P. & Hemal, A. K. Robotic management of complicated ureteropelvic junction obstruction. World J. Urol. 28, 599–602 (2010).
Sivaraman, A. et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology 79, 351–355 (2012).
Park, J., Kim, W. S., Hong, B., Park, T. & Park, H. K. Long-term outcome of secondary endopyelotomy after failed primary intervention for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Int. J. Urol. 15, 490–494 (2008).
Ng, C. S., Yost, A. J. & Streem, S. B. Management of failed primary intervention for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: 12-year, single-center experience. Urology 61, 291–296 (2003).
Eden, C. G., Cahill, D. & Allen, J. D. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: 50 consecutive cases. BJU Int. 88, 526–531 (2001).
Eden, C., Gianduzzo, T., Chang, C., Thiruchelvam, N. & Jones, A. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary and secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J. Urol. 172, 2308–2311 (2004).
Niver, B. E. et al. Analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyleloplasty for primary versus secondary repair in 119 consecutive cases. Urology 79, 689–694 (2012).
Scardino, P. S. & Scardino, P. L. in The Ureter 2nd edn (ed. Bergman, H.) 697–716 (Springer, 1981).
Murphy, D., Challacombe, B., Khan, M. S. & Dasgupta, P. Robotic technology in urology. Postgrad. Med. J. 82, 743–747 (2006).
Yang, Y., Zhou, X., Gao, H., Ji, S. J. & Wang, C. The expression of epidermal growth factor and transforming growth factor-beta1 in the stenotic tissue of congenital pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in children. J. Pediatr. Surg. 38, 1656–1660 (2003).
Lowe, F. C. & Marshall, F. F. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. Urology 23, 331–335 (1984).
Lallas, C. D. et al. The minimally invasive management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in horseshoe kidneys. World J. Urol. 29, 91–95 (2011).
Adey, G. S. et al. Fibroepithelial polyps causing ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. J. Urol. 169, 1834–1836 (2003).
Khan, A. M., Holman, E., Pasztor, I. & Toth, C. Endopyelotomy: experience with 320 cases. J. Endourol. 11, 243–246 (1997).
Knudsen, B. E. et al. Percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy: long-term results from one institution. Urology 63, 230–234 (2004).
Dimarco, D. S. et al. Long-term success of antegrade endopyelotomy compared with pyeloplasty at a single institution. J. Endourol. 20, 707–712 (2006).
Renner, C., Frede, T., Seemann, O. & Rassweiler, J. Laser endopyelotomy: minimally invasive therapy of ureteropelvic junction stenosis. J. Endourol. 12, 537–544 (1998).
Matin, S. F., Yost, A. & Streem, S. B. Ureteroscopic laser endopyelotomy: a single-center experience. J. Endourol. 17, 401–404 (2003).
Mendez-Torres, F. R., Urena, R. & Thomas, R. Retrograde ureteroscopic endopyelotomy. Urol. Clin. North Am. 31, 99–106 (2004).
Ponsky, L. E. & Streem, S. B. Retrograde endopyelotomy: a comparative study of hot-wire balloon and ureteroscopic laser. J. Endourol. 20, 823–826 (2006).
Webber, R. J., Pandian, S. S., McClinton, S. & Hussey, J. Retrograde balloon dilatation for pelviureteric junction obstruction: long-term follow-up. J. Endourol. 11, 239–242 (1997).
Preminger, G. M. et al. A multicenter clinical trial investigating the use of a fluoroscopically controlled cutting balloon catheter for the management of ureteral and ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J. Urol. 157, 1625–1629 (1997).
Biyani, C. S. et al. The role of Acucise endopyelotomy in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Eur. Urol. 41, 305–310 (2002).
Mufarrij, P. W. et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J. Urol. 180, 1391–1396 (2008).
Gupta, N. P. et al. Outcome analysis of robotic pyeloplasty: a large single-centre experience. BJU Int. 105, 980–983 (2010).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
F.K. and N.L. researched data for the article. F.K. and M.S.K. contributed to the discussion of content. F.K. and K.A. wrote the article. F.K., K.A., B.C., M.S.K. and P.D. reviewed/edited the manuscript before submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Khan, F., Ahmed, K., Lee, N. et al. Management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. Nat Rev Urol 11, 629–638 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2014.240
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2014.240
This article is cited by
-
Update Harnleiterrekonstruktion 2024
Die Urologie (2024)
-
Chirurgische Intervention bei der kindlichen Ureterabgangsstenose
Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde (2023)
-
Sudden-onset hypertension leading to the diagnosis of unilateral hydronephrosis due to ureteropelvic junction obstruction
CEN Case Reports (2023)
-
Robot-assisted laparoscopic ileal ureter replacement with extracorporeal ileal segment preparation for long ureteral strictures: a case series
BMC Surgery (2022)
-
The Use of Neutrophil Gelatinase–Associated Lipocalin (NGAL) as a Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarker in Urinary Tract Obstruction: a Systematic Review
Current Urology Reports (2022)