Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.


Pyeloplasty Treatment & Management

  • Author: Thomas MT Turk, MD; Chief Editor: Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS  more...
Updated: Dec 29, 2015

Medical Therapy

No medical therapy is available for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction. Conservative treatment, ie, watchful waiting, is reasonable in situations in which the obstruction is asymptomatic, no evidence in deterioration of renal function exists, and the patient is free from recurrent infections or nephrolithiasis. Conservative treatment may be particularly appropriate in selected children with asymptomatic UPJ obstruction because the obstruction may regress as the child grows.

Of course, if the clinician chooses expectant management, prophylaxis against urinary tract infections that may develop as a result of UPJ obstruction is appropriate. Prophylaxis includes appropriate antibiotics and drainage of the collecting system as indicated. UPJ obstruction may resolve spontaneously in a substantial portion of children.


Surgical Therapy

Open pyeloplasty

Open pyeloplasty remains the criterion standard for the treatment of UPJ obstruction. Although many variations exist in the methodology, this procedure typically involves the surgical excision of the narrowed segment of the UPJ and performance of a spatulated reanastomosis of the renal pelvis to the ureter. If significant dilation of the renal pelvis occurs, it is often reduced in size by trimming off redundant tissue, and then it is tailored in such a fashion that it funnels down towards the anastomosis. If an accessory or aberrant vessel exists near the UPJ, the anastomosis is positioned anterior to the vessel.

An open pyeloplasty can be performed through a variety of incisions but is most likely performed through an extraperitoneal flank incision. Depending on the surgeon's preference and the function of the kidney postoperatively, a nephrostomy tube is occasionally left in place, or, more often, a ureteral stent that passes from the renal pelvis to the bladder is placed. Some surgeons leave a drain near the anastomosis; this is removed postoperatively when the output becomes minimal. The rationale behind this is to help detect fluid leakage from the anastomosis and to prevent its accumulation in the retroperitoneum. If a drain is left, it is usually removed after the patient's bladder Foley catheter is removed and after trial of having the nephrostomy tube (if present) clamped to ascertain that neither maneuver will increase drainage from the anastomosis.

The advantages of this operation include excellent exposure of the UPJ, familiar anatomy for essentially all urologists, the ability to tailor the renal pelvis as needed, and the performance of a watertight anastomosis. The disadvantages include the large surgical incisions and the associated postoperative pain and convalescence.

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty

Since it was first reported in 1993 by Schuessler and associates,[6] the laparoscopic approach to pyeloplasty has continued to gain popularity. The procedure closely mimics the steps of the open approach with adherence to identical surgical principles. It can be performed though either a transperitoneal or retroperitoneal route, depending on surgeon preference and patient factors such as obesity and previous abdominal surgeries. While a transperitoneal approach is familiar to all surgeons and allows a larger working space, the retroperitoneal approach provides more direct access to the UPJ. As with the open pyeloplasty, the UPJ is excised and a spatulated anastomosis is performed using absorbable suture.

The advantages of the laparoscopic approach include less postoperative pain, a shorter hospital stay, and a more rapid recovery. As with its open counterpart, laparoscopy allows for excision of the strictured segment, reduction pyeloplasty, transposition of the UPJ over crossing vessels, and even extraction of concomitant renal calculi. The primary disadvantage is the advanced skill level required for intracorporeal suturing and knot tying. Although the development of specialized laparoscopic instruments has facilitated these tasks, the technical difficulty of the procedure has limited its widespread adoption.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty

The introduction of the da Vinci robotic surgical system has helped to overcome many of the challenges imposed by laparoscopy. Robotic surgery is similar to traditional laparoscopic surgery in that instruments are introduced into the body through several small incisions and manipulated under video guidance. Unlike conventional laparoscopy, in which the surgeon's hands are directly linked to the instruments, in robotic surgery, the surgeon's movements are made in a console that is remote from the patient and translated by the robotic arms.

The advantages provided by the robot include a magnified 3-dimensional view, increased articulation with 6° of freedom to mimic wrist movements, tremor reduction, and motion scaling. These make intracorporeal suturing less formidable and more efficient, giving more surgeons the tools necessary to perform a minimally invasive pyeloplasty. Thus, robotics is rapidly becoming the preferred approach to pyeloplasty for an increasing number of surgeons.

Percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy

With the advent of percutaneous techniques for kidney stone removal in the 1970s, adaptation for treatment of UPJ obstruction was a natural extension. Briefly, percutaneous access is established into the kidney through a mid- or upper-pole posterior calyx. The calyx is chosen so that it allows straight access to the region of the UPJ. The nephrostomy tract is dilated, and a working sheath is placed. A variety of instruments can be passed and directed down to the region of the UPJ through this working sheath. Safety guidewires are passed through the region of the UPJ and into the bladder.

A full-thickness incision is made across the strictured segment in a true lateral position. The lateral position is chosen to reduce the likelihood of injury to the renal hilum located medial and anterior or accessory vessels to the lower pole of the kidney located posterior to the UPJ. The incision is extended to approximately 1 cm distal and 1 cm proximal to the strictured area until periureteral fat is seen.

Following this, a ureteral stent is passed down over one of the safety guidewires and positioned so that one end is in the renal pelvis and the other is passed into the bladder. The size and type of ureteral stent used are based on surgeon preference. Many use a standard 7F stent with the length chosen based on the patient's height. However, specifically designed endopyelotomy stents are available. These stents are of changing diameter. The end with the larger diameter (10-14F) is positioned across the region of the endopyelotomy. The stent then tapers to a diameter of 6 or 7F, which is positioned in the bladder. Whether the larger-diameter stent increases the patency of the endopyelotomy remains controversial.

A nephrostomy tube is placed until the urine has cleared and the patient can tolerate having the nephrostomy tube clamped. The ureteral stent is usually left in place for 4-6 weeks and then removed cystoscopically.

This procedure has the advantage of requiring a very small skin incision and relatively rapid postoperative convalescence with minimal pain. Success rates are reported as high as 85%. Disadvantages of this procedure include potential complications of percutaneous access to the kidney, including infection, bleeding, pneumothorax and hemothorax; potential for bleeding at the site of the ureteral incision; and a slightly lower success rate compared to open or laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

Retrograde endopyelotomy

In an attempt to reduce the potential morbidities associated with a percutaneous approach when treating UPJ obstruction, a retrograde approach has been developed. This procedure involves the passage of a ureteroscope through the bladder and into the ureter in a retrograde fashion. The scope is advanced up to the region of the UPJ. Under direct vision, the UPJ is incised through the full thickness using a variety of devices such as electrocautery or laser. The incision is usually carried proximal and distal to the strictured area until periureteral fat is seen. Following incision, a ureteral stent is left in place in a fashion similar to the antegrade approach.

This procedure has the advantage of being minimally invasive; no skin incision is required. It can often be performed in an outpatient setting. Potential disadvantages include slightly lower success rates compared to its open counterpart; the inability to pass the ureteroscope to the region of stricture, thus requiring additional procedures; the discomfort associated with the postoperative stent; and the need for a skilled endoscopist to accurately and safely perform the procedure.

Acucise endopyelotomy

An additional retrograde approach to the treatment of UPJ obstruction has been developed. This technique uses a balloon catheter with a cutting wire. The Acucise catheter is passed in a retrograde fashion over a safety guidewire under fluoroscopic guidance to the level of the UPJ obstruction. The cutting wire of the catheter is positioned so that it traverses the strictured area. The balloon portion of the catheter is inflated with contrast; when the appropriate position is confirmed fluoroscopically, the cutting wire of the catheter is activated, which incises the strictured area. The incision is meant to be of full thickness and usually results in the extravasation of contrast material. Following incision, the Acucise catheter is removed and a ureteral stent is placed. This stent is left in place for approximately 6 weeks to allow reepithelialization of the ureter and then is removed cystoscopically.

This procedure has the advantages that it is relatively easy to perform, can be performed in an outpatient setting, has low patient morbidity, and has overall success rates of approximately 75%. Disadvantages include the reliance on fluoroscopy rather than continuous and direct vision, potential bleeding complications that may require angiographic or other intervention, and the discomfort associated with the indwelling ureteral stent.

Antegrade endopyeloplasty

A modification of the antegrade endopyelotomy is termed an endopyeloplasty. The beginning of this procedure is similar to that of an antegrade endopyelotomy. After establishing percutaneous access to the kidney, the UPJ is incised full thickness, as with a traditional endopyelotomy. The incision is enlarged with laparoscopic Endoshears. The vertical incision is then closed in a Heineke-Mikulicz (horizontal) fashion with a laparoscopic suture device (Sew-Right SR-5, LSI solutions, Victor, New York) placed through the working channel of the nephroscope. The experience with this procedure is limited to only a few large centers; thus, it has not gained widespread acceptance.


Preoperative Details

All patients should have an anatomic study illustrating the extent of the obstruction and a functional study to assess the function of the affected kidney and contralateral kidney. The authors recommend that all patients have a Lasix renal scan prior to surgery to confirm the presence of obstruction and to ascertain function of the affected and contralateral kidney.

Make every attempt to sterilize the urine of any of these patients preoperatively. Check baseline kidney function, hemoglobin values, and bleeding parameters if indicated. Obtain informed consent that lists alternative treatments and potential intraoperative and postoperative complications. Although transfusion after pyeloplasty or endopyelotomy is rare, ask all patients to sign a blood consent preoperatively. Conversion to an open procedure or the need for additional procedures is a possibility with all of the treatments for UPJ and thus should be addressed in detail with the patient preoperatively.

Immediately prior to the procedure, the patient should receive a dose of a broad-spectrum antibiotic such as cefazolin. As an alternative, ampicillin and gentamicin can be given concurrently.


Intraoperative Details

Open pyeloplasty

If the patient's ureteral anatomy has not been defined preoperatively with intravenous urogram (IVU) images, most physicians advocate performance of a retrograde pyelogram prior to the pyeloplasty. Findings illustrate the length of the stricture and help confirm that no evidence of obstruction exists distal to the UPJ. After performance of the retrograde pyelogram, a Foley catheter is placed and the patient is placed in the flank position. The incision used is based on surgeon preference and the patient's particular anatomy, but typically, an extraperitoneal flank or subcostal approach is used.

Following incision and division of the muscles, the peritoneum is swept medially, the kidney is identified, and Gerota fascia is opened. Perinephric fat is cleaned off until the renal pelvis and proximal ureter are completely identified. Control of the renal hilum is generally not necessary. Accessory renal arteries are often identified, supplying the lower pole of the kidney that crosses the ureter at the point of the UPJ obstruction. Make every effort to spare these vessels because ligation can devascularize a segment of kidney.

Once the region at the UPJ is dissected out, holding stitches are placed on the renal pelvis and the ureter distal to the UPJ obstruction. The region of the UPJ is then excised out sharply. Following this, free flow of urine from the renal pelvis should occur. The ureter is often injected with sterile saline to confirm free flow down the remainder (distal portion) of the ureter. Next, the ureter is spatulated laterally at a distance of approximately 1 cm. If the renal pelvis is largely hydronephrotic, it is frequently reduced with the hope of funneling the urine down towards the newly created anastomosis.

The next step is the anastomosis. If an accessory renal vessel is identified, perform the anastomosis anterior to the vessel. Using small absorbable sutures such as 5-0 Monocryl or PDS on a small tapered needle, the anastomosis is performed between the spatulated ureter and renal pelvis.

The first stitch is usually placed in the lateral aspect of the ureter and the lateral most aspect of the renal pelvis. The remainder of the anastomosis is then performed using either interrupted or running sutures. If a ureteral stent is to be placed, it is placed prior to completion of the anastomosis. After performance of the anastomosis, usually a redundant pelvis must be closed. This is usually performed in a running fashion. If a Penrose or a closed-suction drain is placed near the anastomosis, it is brought up through a separate incision. The abdomen is closed in a routine fashion.

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty

Prior to proceeding with pyeloplasty, many surgeons perform retrograde pyelography to more precisely define the stricture length and location and to rule out obstruction distal to the UPJ. A double-J ureteral stent may be placed at this time. The patient is then repositioned on the operating table, and pneumoperitoneum is established. The dissection is begun by mobilizing the colon on the affected side medially by incising along the avascular line of Toldt. The kidney, with overlying perinephric fat, is usually easily identified. Gerota fascia is opened, and dissection is carried down to the level of the kidney.

Once the UPJ is identified, the renal pelvis and proximal ureter are dissected. As with the open pyeloplasty, dissection of the ureter is minimized in an attempt to preserve its blood supply. The strictured region is then excised sharply. At this point, the ureteral stent should be clearly visible. The ureter is spatulated on its lateral aspect, and, if necessary, the redundant renal pelvis is excised. The goal is to place the UPJ in a dependent position to maximize drainage without placing the anastomosis under tension. If a crossing vessel is present and appears to be obstructive in nature, the renal pelvis and ureter may be transposed anterior to the vessel. It is important to preserve accessory arteries because they often supply blood to a significant portion of the kidney, as well as to the renal pelvis and proximal ureter.

Prior to completion of the anastomosis, the proximal end of the double-J stent is passed into the renal pelvis. Most surgeons perform the anastomosis in a running fashion. Lapra-Ty clips may be used to minimize knot tying, and specialized instruments such as the Endostitch device may facilitate suturing. Important principles include the creation of a tension-free watertight anastomosis with preservation of the periureteral blood supply. Once the anastomosis is completed, a closed-suction drain is placed through one of the trocar sites. The pneumoperitoneum is reduced, and the abdomen is exited in the standard fashion. All trocar sites larger than 10 mm are closed in an effort to reduce herniation of abdominal contents through the fascial defect.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty

The steps of the robotic pyeloplasty are similar to those of a traditional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Retrograde pyelography and stent placement may be performed initially with the patient in the lithotomy position. However, the specialized instruments used during robotic surgery facilitate antegrade stent placement, leading some surgeons to forego the initial cystoscopic procedure. The patient is then placed in the lateral decubitus position with the ipsilateral kidney superior. Pneumoperitoneum is established with either a Veress needle or the Hasson technique. A 12-mm camera port and two 8-mm robotic ports are placed in a triangular fashion, with the camera in the center. Assistant ports are placed as needed.

After the colon has been reflected medially, the UPJ is mobilized and then divided, taking care to preserve the periureteral blood supply and any accessory lower-pole vessels. Careful manipulation of the proximal ureter may be accomplished by using the redundant UPJ tissue as a handle or with the aid of a stay suture. The redundant pelvis is excised along with the strictured segment, and the ureter is spatulated along its lateral aspect. A running anastomosis is performed over a stent, most commonly with 4-0 polyglactin suture, along the posterior and anterior walls. A drain may be placed near the anastomosis and brought out through one of the port sites, although many surgeons do not routinely leave a drain.

Antegrade endopyelotomy

Ureteral anatomy must be defined. If needed, a retrograde pyelogram is performed. A stricture longer than 2 cm is generally a contraindication to endopyelotomy. The role of a crossing vessel in the region of the UPJ is controversial. Some authors believe a crossing vessel is a contraindication to endopyelotomy because success rates are reportedly lower and bleeding complications higher. However, others have challenged these contentions and believe that if the incision is performed in a true lateral position, endopyelotomy is safe and has an acceptable success rate even in the presence of a crossing vessel.

A Foley catheter is placed at the start of the case. The patient is positioned in a prone position with appropriate padding. Access to the kidney is obtained through either a mid- or upper-pole posterior calyx. This can be performed at the start of the procedure or prior to the endopyelotomy if the interventional radiologist establishes access at the surgeon's hospital. A guidewire is then passed through the calyx, negotiated beyond the UPJ, and continued down into the bladder. The inability to pass a guidewire through the strictured area is a contraindication to endopyelotomy. Then, a second safety wire is usually placed. The nephrostomy tract is dilated using either a dilating balloon or serial dilators.

A working sheath is passed from the skin into the collecting system. A scope is then passed through the working sheath and into the renal pelvis. The renal pelvis is inspected. If any calculi are found, they are treated and removed. The region of the UPJ is then inspected. Contrast material can be injected in an antegrade fashion to further delineate the anatomy. Next, the endopyelotomy is performed.

The authors typically use a cold knife; however, a hot knife (electrocautery or laser) can be used to make the incision. Making the incision in a truly lateral position is critical. This position can be confirmed using a combination of direct visualization and fluoroscopic guidance. The incision is generally begun 0.5-1 cm distal to the obstruction, carried through the strictured area, and continued 0.5-1 cm proximal to the strictured area. The incision should be of full thickness until periureteral fat is visible. Following the incision of the strictured segment, a ureteral stent is placed. The size of the stent depends on surgeon preference. An endopyelotomy stent can be used. The stent is passed down over one of the safety guidewires, and the position is confirmed with fluoroscopy so that one curl is in the renal pelvis and the distal curl is in the urinary bladder.

After confirming satisfactory stent position, the scope is removed and a nephrostomy tube is placed through the working sheath into the renal pelvis. The working sheath is then removed. The nephrostomy tube is generally hooked to gravity drainage, and the patient is recovered from anesthesia.

Antegrade endopyeloplasty

The technique for pyeloplasty is very similar to that of a standard endopyelotomy. Antegrade access is established into the kidney in an upper or midpole calix. The site of obstruction is identified and incised the full thickness, as with a standard endopyelotomy. Laparoscopic scissors are passed through the nephroscope, and the distal edge of the endopyelotomy incision is mobilized. The vertical defect is then closed in a horizontal fashion (Heineke-Mikulicz) using a laparoscopic suture assist device (Sew-Right SR-5, LSI solutions, Victor, New York). A ureteral stent and nephrostomy tube are placed in the standard fashion.

Retrograde endopyelotomy

In this procedure, the patient is placed in the lithotomy position. Retrograde pyelography is performed to help delineate the ureteral anatomy. A guidewire is passed in a retrograde fashion up the ureter and curled in the renal pelvis. A second safety wire is then placed. Generally, the procedure is performed using a flexible ureteroscope, although in certain individuals, a rigid ureteroscope can be passed to the region of the UPJ. The scope is passed to the level of the UPJ. Again, the incision is made in a true lateral position. This is critical to reduce the risk of bleeding complications. The strictured segment is incised 0.5-1 cm both proximal and distal to the strictured area. The device used for incision is based on surgeon preference but can include a hook electrode hooked to electrocautery or, more recently, the holmium:YAG laser. The incision should be of full thickness until periureteral fat is visible.

Following the incision, the ureteroscope is removed and a double-J stent is placed in a routine fashion. The position of the proximal curl in the renal pelvis is confirmed, as is the distal curl in the bladder. A Foley catheter is generally placed at least overnight, and the patient is recovered from anesthesia.

Acucise endopyelotomy

This procedure is performed without the passage of an ureteroscope and is essentially performed under fluoroscopic guidance only. With the patient in the lithotomy position, a retrograde pyelogram is performed to help delineate the UPJ anatomy. Next, a safety wire is passed up the ureter, beyond the UPJ, and into the renal pelvis. The Acucise endopyelotomy catheter is then passed over the guidewire and to the region of the UPJ. The cutting-wire portion of the catheter is readily visible on fluoroscopy images. Inflate the balloon portion of the catheter with contrast under fluoroscopic guidance. Identify a clear "waist" (ie, narrowing) in the region of the UPJ. Once this is confirmed, the balloon is then deflated again.

Using fluoroscopic guidance, a true lateral position of the cutting wire is confirmed. The balloon is then reinflated with contrast, and the cutting wire is activated with 75 W of pure cutting current for 5 seconds. With activation of the cutting wire, the waist should immediately disappear. After cutting, the balloon is left inflated for an additional 5 minutes. If extravasation of contrast is identified outside of the collecting system, the balloon is deflated and the Acucise catheter is removed.

If no obvious extravasation is identified, more contrast material is injected in a retrograde fashion to further fill the renal pelvis. If extravasation is still not identified, the catheter can be repositioned and a second incision performed in a similar fashion to the first. Perform no more than 2 cuts. Following removal of the Acucise catheter, a ureteral stent is placed in a routine fashion over the safety wire, under fluoroscopic guidance. The safety guidewires are removed, a Foley catheter is placed, and the patient is recovered from anesthesia.


Postoperative Details

Open pyeloplasty

Following recovery from anesthesia, the patient is generally given ice chips and, perhaps, clear liquids at the end of surgery if they have no clinical evidence of an ileus. If not, liquids are deferred until the following morning. Prompt mobilization of the patient and a pulmonary toilet is maintained postoperatively. Pain is controlled with either a morphine patient-controlled analgesia device or, in some cases, an epidural catheter. Once patients are tolerating a general diet, they are switched to oral pain medication. Antibiotics are continued until the drain is removed. The drain is removed once the output is deemed minimal. The Foley catheter may be removed at any point between the first and fifth postoperative day, and the patient is discharged.

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty/robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty

Postoperative recovery from laparoscopic procedures is generally quicker than from open surgery. Patients may be allowed to have a clear liquid diet the evening of surgery. Postoperative pain can usually be adequately managed with oral pain medications. The urethral catheter is removed first, usually on postoperative day one or two. If the flank drain output remains low with voluntary voiding, which indicates a water-tight anastomosis, it may be discontinued. Many surgeons, especially those performing minimally invasive pyeloplasty, do not routinely leave a drain. In this instance, the Foley catheter may be left in place for 3-5 days to reduce the transference of high voiding pressures to the newly created anastomosis. Most patients are discharged from the hospital within 2-3 days. The double-J ureteral stent is removed at 4-6 weeks once the repair has healed.

Antegrade endopyelotomy/endopyeloplasty

After recovering from anesthesia, patients are kept in a regular room. A nephrostomy tube is usually left with open drainage until the urine is free of clots. The tube can then be clamped. If the patient tolerates clamping of the tube without significant pain or fever, the nephrostomy tube can generally be removed. Postoperative pain for this procedure is usually minimal and requires only oral narcotics. Antibiotics are continued until the nephrostomy tube is removed, and patients are usually discharged home with suppressive antibiotics, although the authors are aware that no clinical studies exist that prove the necessity of this approach.

Retrograde endopyelotomy and Acucise endopyelotomy

Recovery from these procedures is usually the fastest compared to the other procedures mentioned. If a Foley catheter is left in place, it is usually removed the next morning, assuming the urine is free of clots. Pain is usually easily controlled with oral pain medicine. Perioperative antibiotics are continued until the following morning. Discharge usually occurs on the morning after surgery, although in some centers, these procedures are performed in an outpatient setting.



Follow-up of UPJ obstruction after the procedure is somewhat dictated by the procedure performed. If an indwelling ureteral stent is left in place, it is usually removed cystoscopically 4-6 weeks after the procedure.

Generally, perform imaging studies approximately 6-8 weeks after the procedure to assess renal function and to help rule out residual obstruction.[7] The authors believe that the Lasix renal scan is the best study to use because it provides an assessment of the function of the kidney and helps establish whether any evidence of obstruction exists. An alternative study is an IVP. Ultrasound is probably not a good procedure because patients can often have residual hydronephrosis without evidence of obstruction.

If patients experience recurrence of flank pain or have evidence of urinary tract infection prior to 6 weeks, consider performing imaging studies earlier. If findings from the initial study at 6 weeks show no evidence of obstruction, monitor patients clinically from that time forward in terms of their symptoms, and obtain routine urinalyses to help detect infection. The authors typically obtain one other imaging study 6 months to 1 year postprocedure to help rule out a silent obstruction from stricture recurrence. Recurrence of the obstruction can occur anytime after the initial surgery; therefore, patients generally require a lifetime of follow-up.

For excellent patient education resources, see eMedicineHealth's patient education articles Blood in the Urine and Intravenous Pyelogram.



Each of the different surgical treatments for the correction of ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction has potential complications. Recurrent obstruction can develop after any of the techniques described. Specific success rate for the various procedures are described in Outcome and Prognosis.

As with all surgical procedures, a potential for bleeding exists at the time of surgery and in the immediate postoperative period. Adherence to proper surgical technique and proper patient selection should decrease the potential for significant bleeding complications. The endourological techniques of antegrade and retrograde endopyelotomy and the Acucise endopyelotomy are different because bleeding may not be as readily apparent as in the open or laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Adequate monitoring of vital signs, hematocrit measurements when indicated, and the degree of hematuria after the procedure can alert the surgeon to the possibility of significant bleeding.

Urinary tract infection can occur after any treatment for UPJ obstruction. Make every effort to sterilize the urine of patients prior to the procedure. In addition, use preoperative and perioperative antibiotics in all patients. For antibiotic coverage, use broad-spectrum antibiotics with particular emphasis on coverage against gram-negative rod pathogens. A study by Ferroni et al found that the administration of extended prophylactic antibiotics following minimally invasive pyeloplasty showed no significant impact on the rate of urinary tract infection.[8]

Secondary ureteropelvic obstruction

Secondary UPJ obstruction occurs when a previous attempt at surgical treatment has failed. Scar tissue formation due to surgical dissection or to fluid extravasation during endoscopic treatment may present an additional challenge during treatment of secondary UPJ obstruction. Traditionally, the treatment of choice following a previous open repair has been antegrade endopyelotomy, while open pyeloplasty is usually attempted after an initial endoscopic approach has been unsuccessful. Jabbour and colleagues (1998) report an 88% success rate with endopyelotomy following failed open pyeloplasty.[9] Conversely, the success rate of endoscopic treatment of secondary obstruction following a previous attempt at endoscopic management may be as low as 38%.

More recently, centers with considerable experience in laparoscopy have achieved good success rates with secondary laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Sundaram and colleagues (2003) reported an overall success rate of 83% among 36 patients, most of whom had undergone previous endourologic procedures, including 28 who underwent previous cutting balloon retrograde endopyelotomy.[10] Laparoscopic pyeloplasty is certainly a reasonable option following previous attempts at endourologic management. However, more authors are proceeding directly to laparoscopic or robotic pyeloplasty for secondary obstruction after an initial pyeloplasty. Basiri and colleagues (2007) treated 18 patients with laparoscopic pyeloplasty following failed open surgery, with a success rate exceeding 75%.[11]


Outcome and Prognosis

Success rates for the different treatments for ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction vary depending on a number of factors, including, but not limited, to the degree of obstruction; whether it is a primary or secondary obstruction; the function of the affected kidney; anatomic considerations, such as the presence of crossing vessels; and the expertise of the treating surgeon.

Open pyeloplasty

Often considered the criterion standard for the treatment of UPJ obstruction, open pyeloplasty has success rates consistently greater than 90% based on subjective patient symptoms and objective radiographic evidence.

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty

Although technically more difficult than open pyeloplasty, this technique shares similar success rates with its open counterpart. Success rates range from 88%-100%, with most series citing rates well over 90%. In the largest series to date of 170 patients undergoing dismembered pyeloplasty, Moon and colleagues (2006) report a symptomatic success rate of 96%.[12]

Robotic pyeloplasty

The enthusiasm for robotic pyeloplasty is supported by a mounting body of evidence documenting its efficacy. Several single-center series report symptomatic and radiographic success rates of 94%-100%, and, recently, a multi-institutional review reported that 96% of patients undergoing robotic dismembered pyeloplasty at 3 centers demonstrated resolution of obstruction on imaging studies.[13] In addition, most series report significantly shorter operative times for robotic compared with laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

Antegrade endopyelotomy

The success rates of antegrade endopyelotomy are 75-95%. Different factors contributing to the success or failure include whether the obstruction is primary or secondary, whether high insertion of the ureter into the renal pelvis occurred, the degree of hydronephrosis and the function of the affected kidney, and the presence of a crossing vessel near the UPJ.

Retrograde endopyelotomy

Although this approach is typically considered to have lower success rates compared to an antegrade approach and open or laparoscopic pyeloplasty, it can usually be performed with minimal morbidity and, perhaps, at a lower cost compared to alternative treatments. Success rates are reported to be 70-85%. As with an antegrade approach, anatomic and functional factors affect the overall success rates.

Acucise endopyelotomy

The overall success rate of 75% for Acucise retrograde endopyelotomy is similar to that of the antegrade and retrograde approach. Similar anatomic and functional factors can also affect the success rate of this procedure.


Future and Controversies

The optimal treatment for patients with ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction is a continuing source of controversy among urologic surgeons. While open pyeloplasty has traditionally yielded the highest success rates, this must be balanced against greater patient discomfort and longer recovery times. Conversely, endopyelotomy is a less morbid approach, with generally lower but potentially acceptable success rates. Standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty combines the minimally invasive aspects while maintaining the effectiveness of open pyeloplasty; however, its technical challenges have limited its use to centers with considerable laparoscopic expertise. The da Vinci robot holds promise as a tool that will allow more surgeons to offer a minimally invasive approach to pyeloplasty.

As evidenced by the development of the laparoscopic pyeloplasty, a trend toward less-invasive approaches for the treatment of UPJ obstruction is certainly occurring. Other methods are being explored that may work as adjuncts to the currently available surgical treatments. The primary reason for failure of the current procedures is the formation of scar tissue composed of collagen at the site of the anastomosis or the site of endopyelotomy. Some investigators are examining the role of collagen inhibitors in animal models to reduce the amount of collagen in an attempt to reduce scarring after treatment.

Other investigators are examining the role of adenovirus to transfect genes to reduce scarring in the ureters of animals with ureteral strictures. While these studies explore adjuncts to the currently available treatments, the ultimate outcome may be the development of less-invasive or noninvasive treatments for UPJ obstruction.

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Thomas MT Turk, MD Associate Professor, Department of Urology, Loyola University Medical Center

Thomas MT Turk, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Urological Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.


Brant R Fulmer, MD Consulting Staff, Department of Urology, Geisinger Medical Center Urology

Brant R Fulmer, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Urological Association

Disclosure: Partner received honoraria from Intuitive Surgical for speaking and teaching.

Anthony J Polcari, MD Staff Physician, Department of Urology, Loyola University Medical Center

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Chief Editor

Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS Professor of Urology, Director, Center for Laparoscopy and Endourology, Department of Surgery, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine

Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, Society of University Urologists, Association of Military Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons, American Urological Association, Endourological Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

Peter Langenstroer, MD Associate Professor, Department of Urology, Medical College of Wisconsin

Peter Langenstroer, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Urological Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.


Sameer K Sharma, MD Staff Physician, Department of Urology, Loyola University Medical Center

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

  1. Helin I, Persson PH. Prenatal diagnosis of urinary tract abnormalities by ultrasound. Pediatrics. 1986 Nov. 78(5):879-83. [Medline].

  2. Blanc T, Koulouris E, Botto N, Paye-Jaouen A, El-Ghoneimi A. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty on horseshoe kidney in children. J Urol. 2013 Oct 16. [Medline].

  3. Naitoh Y, Kawauchi A, Kamoi K, Soh J, Hongo F, Okihara K, et al. Nephrolithotomy Performed Concurrently With Laparoendoscopic Single-site Pyeloplasty. Urology. 2013 Oct 19. [Medline].

  4. Atwell JD. Familial pelviureteric junction hydronephrosis and its association with a duplex pelvicaliceal system and vesicoureteric reflux. A family study. Br J Urol. 1985 Aug. 57(4):365-9. [Medline].

  5. Dietl J. Wandernde nieren und deren einklemmung. Wien Med Wochenschr. 1864. 14:153.

  6. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993 Dec. 150(6):1795-9. [Medline].

  7. Lantz AG, Ordon M, Pace KT, Honey RJ. Prone Versus Supine Lasix Renal Scan to Assess Surgical Success After Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2013 Oct 9. [Medline].

  8. Ferroni MC, Lyon TD, Rycyna KJ, Dwyer ME, Schneck FX, Ost MC, et al. The Role of Prophylactic Antibiotics after Minimally Invasive Pyeloplasty with Ureteral Stent Placement in Children. Urology. 2015 Dec 9. [Medline].

  9. Jabbour ME, Goldfischer ER, Klima WJ, et al. Endopyelotomy after failed pyeloplasty: the long-term results. J Urol. 1998 Sep. 160(3 Pt 1):690-2; discussion 692-3. [Medline].

  10. Sundaram CP, Grubb RL 3rd, Rehman J, Yan Y, Chen C, Landman J, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol. 2003 Jun. 169(6):2037-40. [Medline].

  11. Basiri A, Behjati S, Zand S, Moghaddam SM. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction after failed open surgery. J Endourol. 2007 Sep. 21(9):1045-51; discussion 1051. [Medline].

  12. Moon DA, El-Shazly MA, Chang CM, Gianduzzo TR, Eden CG. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: evolution of a new gold standard. Urology. 2006 May. 67(5):932-6. [Medline].

  13. Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, Palese MA, Berger AD, Thomas R, et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2008 Oct. 180(4):1391-6. [Medline].

  14. Alcaraz A, Vinaixa F, Tejedo-Mateu A, et al. Obstruction and recanalization of the ureter during embryonic development. J Urol. 1991 Feb. 145(2):410-6. [Medline].

  15. Anidjar M, Mongiat-Artus P, Brouland JP, et al. Ureteral gene transfer to porcine induced strictures using endourologic delivery of an adenoviral vector. J Urol. 1999 May. 161(5):1636-43. [Medline].

  16. Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol. 1999 Sep. 162(3 Pt 1):692-5. [Medline].

  17. Bauer S. Anaomalies of the kidney and ureteropelvic junction. Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, Wein AJ, eds. Campbell's Urology. 7th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1998. 1740-3.

  18. Bernstein GT, Mandell J, Lebowitz RL, et al. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction in the neonate. J Urol. 1988 Nov. 140(5 Pt 2):1216-21. [Medline].

  19. Biyani CS, Cornford PA, Powell CS. Ureteroscopic endopyelotomy with the Holmium:YAG laser. mid-term results. Eur Urol. 2000 Aug. 38(2):139-43. [Medline].

  20. Bomalaski MD, Hirschl RB, Bloom DA. Vesicoureteral reflux and ureteropelvic junction obstruction: association, treatment options and outcome. J Urol. 1997 Mar. 157(3):969-74. [Medline].

  21. Brown T, Mandell J, Lebowitz RL. Neonatal hydronephrosis in the era of sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987 May. 148(5):959-63. [Medline].

  22. Canes D, Berger A, Gettman MT, Desai MM. Minimally invasive approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urol Clin North Am. 2008 Aug. 35(3):425-39, viii. [Medline].

  23. Catalano C, Pavone P, Laghi A, et al. MR pyelography and conventional MR imaging in urinary tract obstruction. Acta Radiol. 1999 Mar. 40(2):198-202. [Medline].

  24. Clark WR, Malek RS. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction. I. Observations on the classic type in adults. J Urol. 1987 Aug. 138(2):276-9. [Medline].

  25. Corteville JE, Gray DL, Crane JP. Congenital hydronephrosis: correlation of fetal ultrasonographic findings with infant outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Aug. 165(2):384-8. [Medline].

  26. Danuser H, Ackermann DK, Bohlen D, Studer UE. Endopyelotomy for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: risk factors determine the success rate. J Urol. 1998 Jan. 159(1):56-61. [Medline].

  27. Desai MM, Desai MR, Gill IS. Endopyeloplasty versus endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2004 Jul. 64(1):16-21; discussion 21. [Medline].

  28. Gill IS, Desai MM, Kaouk JH, et al. Percutaneous endopyeloplasty: description of new technique. J Urol. 2002 Nov. 168(5):2097-102. [Medline].

  29. Gleason PE, Kelalis PP, Husmann DA, Kramer SE. Hydronephrosis in renal ectopia: incidence, etiology and significance. J Urol. 1994 Jun. 151(6):1660-1. [Medline].

  30. Glenn JF. Analysis of 51 patients with horseshoe kidney. N Engl J Med. 1959 Oct 1. 261:684-7. [Medline].

  31. Hanna MK, Jeffs RD, Sturgess JM, Barkin M. Ureteral structure and ultrastructure. Part II. Congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction and primary obstructive megaureter. J Urol. 1976 Dec. 116(6):725-30. [Medline].

  32. Johnston JH, Evans JP, Glassberg KI, Shapiro SR. Pelvic hydronephrosis in children: a review of 219 personal cases. J Urol. 1977 Jan. 117(1):97-101. [Medline].

  33. Kass EJ, Majd M, Belman AB. Comparison of the diuretic renogram and the pressure perfusion study in children. J Urol. 1985 Jul. 134(1):92-6. [Medline].

  34. Kim WJ, Yun SJ, Lee TS, et al. Collagen-to-smooth muscle ratio helps prediction of prognosis after pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2000 Apr. 163(4):1271-5. [Medline].

  35. King LR, Coughlin PW, Bloch EC, et al. The case for immediate pyeloplasty in the neonate with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol. 1984 Oct. 132(4):725-8. [Medline].

  36. Koff SA. Pathophysiology of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Clinical and experimental observations. Urol Clin North Am. 1990 May. 17(2):263-72. [Medline].

  37. Koff SA, Campbell K. Nonoperative management of unilateral neonatal hydronephrosis. J Urol. 1992 Aug. 148(2 Pt 2):525-31. [Medline].

  38. Koff SA, Campbell KD. The nonoperative management of unilateral neonatal hydronephrosis: natural history of poorly functioning kidneys. J Urol. 1994 Aug. 152(2 Pt 2):593-5. [Medline].

  39. Lechevallier E, Eghazarian C, Ortega JC, et al. Retrograde Acucise endopyelotomy: long-term results. J Endourol. 1999 Oct. 13(8):575-8; discussion 578-80. [Medline].

  40. Louca G, Liberopoulos K, Fidas A, et al. MR urography in the diagnosis of urinary tract obstruction. Eur Urol. 1999 Feb. 35(2):102-8. [Medline].

  41. Lowe FC, Marshall FF. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. Urology. 1984 Apr. 23(4):331-5. [Medline].

  42. Maizels M, Stephens FD. Valves of the ureter as a cause of primary obstruction of the ureter: anatomic, embryologic and clinical aspects. J Urol. 1980 May. 123(5):742-7. [Medline].

  43. Matsuno T, Tokunaka S, Koyanagi T. Muscular development in the urinary tract. J Urol. 1984 Jul. 132(1):148-52. [Medline].

  44. Moore RG, Averch TD, Schulam PG, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: experience with the initial 30 cases. J Urol. 1997 Feb. 157(2):459-62. [Medline].

  45. Niemczyk P, Krisch EB, Zeiger L, Marmar JL. Use of diuretic renogram in evaluation of patients before and after endopyelotomy. Urology. 1999 Feb. 53(2):271-5. [Medline].

  46. Notley RG. Electron microscopy of the upper ureter and the pelvi-ureteric junction. Br J Urol. 1968 Feb. 40(1):37-52. [Medline].

  47. Novick A, Streem S. Surgery of the kidney. Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, Wein AJ, eds. Campbell's Urology. 7th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1998. 1743.

  48. Park JM, Bloom DA. The pathophysiology of UPJ obstruction. Current concepts. Urol Clin North Am. 1998 May. 25(2):161-9. [Medline].

  49. Patel V. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology. 2005 Jul. 66(1):45-9.

  50. Platt JF. Urinary obstruction. Radiol Clin North Am. 1996 Nov. 34(6):1113-29. [Medline].

  51. Recker F, Subotic B, Goepel M, Tscholl R. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: preliminary report. J Urol. 1995 May. 153(5):1601-4. [Medline].

  52. Reddy PP, Mandell J. Prenatal diagnosis. Therapeutic implications. Urol Clin North Am. 1998 May. 25(2):171-80. [Medline].

  53. Riehle RA Jr, Vaughan ED Jr. Renin participation in hypertension associated with unilateral hydronephrosis. J Urol. 1981 Aug. 126(2):243-6. [Medline].

  54. Roarke MC, Sandler CM. Provocative imaging. Diuretic renography. Urol Clin North Am. 1998 May. 25(2):227-49. [Medline].

  55. Schwartz BF, Stoller ML. Complications of retrograde balloon cautery endopyelotomy. J Urol. 1999 Nov. 162(5):1594-8. [Medline].

  56. Segura JW. Antegrade endopyelotomy. Urol Clin North Am. 1998 May. 25(2):311-6. [Medline].

  57. Shalaby-Rana E, Lowe LH, Blask AN, Majd M. Imaging in pediatric urology. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1997 Oct. 44(5):1065-89. [Medline].

  58. Shalhav AL, Giusti G, Elbahnasy AM, et al. Adult endopyelotomy: impact of etiology and antegrade versus retrograde approach on outcome. J Urol. 1998 Sep. 160(3 Pt 1):685-9. [Medline].

  59. Stephens FD. Ureterovascular hydronephrosis and the "aberrant" renal vessels. J Urol. 1982 Nov. 128(5):984-7. [Medline].

  60. Takla NV, Hamilton BD, Cartwright PC, Snow BW. Apparent unilateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction in the newborn: expectations for resolution. J Urol. 1998 Dec. 160(6 Pt 1):2175-8. [Medline].

  61. Tawfiek ER, Liu JB, Bagley DH. Ureteroscopic treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol. 1998 Nov. 160(5):1643-6; discussion 1646-7. [Medline].

  62. Thomas DF, Gordon AC. Management of prenatally diagnosed uropathies. Arch Dis Child. 1989 Jan. 64(1 Spec No):58-63. [Medline].

  63. Thorup J, Pedersen PV, Clausen N. Benign ureteral polyp as a cause of intermittent hydronephrosis in a child. J Urol. 1981 Dec. 126(6):796-7. [Medline].

  64. Turk TM, Koleski FC, Wojcik E, et al. Use of epidermal growth factor and collagen synthesis inhibition as adjuvant to healing of ureteroureteral anastomosis. J Endourol. 2000 Mar. 14(2):145-7. [Medline].

  65. Wang Y, Puri P, Hassan J, et al. Abnormal innervation and altered nerve growth factor messenger ribonucleic acid expression in ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol. 1995 Aug. 154(2 Pt 2):679-83. [Medline].

  66. Whitaker RH. Clinical assessment of pelvic and ureteral function. Urology. 1978 Aug. 12(2):146-50. [Medline].

  67. Williams DI, Kenawi MM. The prognosis of pelviureteric obstruction in childhood: a review of 190 cases. Eur Urol. 1976. 2(2):57-63. [Medline].

CT scan without contrast demonstrating severe left-sided hydronephrosis secondary to ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
Excretory urogram shows a horseshoe kidney with left hydronephrosis.
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.