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


Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction Treatment & Management

  • Author: Michael Grasso, III, MD; Chief Editor: Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS  more...
Updated: Jan 30, 2015

Medical Therapy

In children with ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction, medical therapy is focused on maintaining sterile urine and assessing renal function and the degree of hydronephrosis. Typically, when imaging studies reveal an incomplete obstruction, the patient is monitored with routine renal ultrasonography and nuclear medicine renography. Currently, no available medical therapy is capable of reversing UPJ obstruction in either adults or children.

Initially, most children are treated conservatively and monitored closely. Intervention is indicated in the event of significantly impaired renal drainage or poor renal growth. The accepted criteria for intervention in infants and children include clearance half-time (T 1/2) greater than 20 minutes, differential function less than 40%, and ongoing parenchymal thinning with or without contralateral compensatory hypertrophy. Intervention is also indicated in those with pain, hypertension, hematuria, secondary renal calculi, and recurrent urinary tract infections.


Surgical Therapy

Surgical intervention to treat an obstructed UPJ is warranted, especially upon deterioration of renal function. The principles of surgical repair, as initially described by Foley, include the following:

  • Formation of a funnel
  • Dependent drainage
  • Watertight anastomosis
  • Tension-free anastomosis

In children, the procedure of choice is an Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty. The approach may be performed through a flank, dorsal lumbotomy, or anterior extraperitoneal technique. Laparoscopy has gained increasing acceptance in pediatric surgery and is often used to perform pyeloplasties in children. In many cases, laparoscopic pyeloplasty is technically unfeasible in very small children and infants because of space constraints.

Using this method, the obstructed segment is completely resected, with reanastomosis of the renal pelvis and ureter in a dependent funneled fashion. The decision of whether to use a ureteral stent transiently during the initial healing process is based on the personal preference of the surgeon. The success rate of dismembered pyeloplasty for treating an obstructed UPJ exceeds 95%.

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty offers a minimally invasive treatment option that may be used in patients with either primary or secondary UPJ obstruction and is emerging as a new criterion standard in the treatment of UPJ obstruction.[1] Success rates are comparable with those of open pyeloplasty procedures, and some studies have shown that laparoscopy offers the advantages of decreased morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and quicker recovery. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty is a technically demanding procedure that generally requires significant laparoscopic experience. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty has become increasingly popular as the robots have become more prevalent. A small intrarenal pelvis is a relative contraindication to laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

Endoscopic treatment alternatives include an antegrade or retrograde endopyelotomy, which is an endoscopic incision performed through the obstructing segment.

Prior to incising a UPJ obstruction, intraluminal ultrasonography or another imaging study is recommended to evaluate adjacent ureteral vasculature. Endoluminal ultrasonography is particularly useful in evaluating an obstructed UPJ because it allows for complete real-time evaluation with specific attention to the presence or proximity of blood vessels prior to an endoscopic incision. It is also useful in defining the ureteral anatomy and in directing the incision technique in order to maximize the surgical outcome.

An endopyelotomy incision is performed through the area of obstruction with a laser, electrocautery, or endoscopic scalpel. Most surgeons dilate the newly incised area with a balloon catheter to help ensure a complete incision. This is followed by prolonged ureteral stenting, for a period of 4-8 weeks. The stent acts as internal scaffolding during healing and maintains renal drainage. Success rates with the percutaneous and ureteroscopic endopyelotomy are 80-90%.

When open pyeloplasty fails, endopyelotomy is particularly useful, even in the pediatric population.

In patients who have a suboptimal result from endopyelotomy, repeat incision can be performed with success. Traditional open or laparoscopic pyeloplasty is also indicated after failed endopyelotomy.

Of the open surgical repairs used to treat UPJ obstruction, the Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty is particularly useful for the high-insertion variant. The benefit of this procedure is complete excision of the diseased segment of ureter and reconstruction with healthy viable tissue.

The Foley Y-V plasty is also useful for the high-insertion variant but cannot be used if transposition of a lower-pole vessel is needed.

Endopyelotomy for high-insertion UPJ obstruction is patterned after this open surgical procedure but is contraindicated in the presence of a crossing posterior or lateral vessel.

Spiral and vertical flaps (eg, Culp and DeWeerd, Scardino and Prince) are useful when a long-strictured segment of diseased ureter is encountered. With these procedures, the proximal ureter is re-created with redundant renal pelvis that is tubularized.

Ureterocalicostomy, ie, anastomosis of the ureter to a lower-pole renal calyx, is usually reserved for failed open pyeloplasty when no extrarenal pelvis and significant hilar scarring are present. With this procedure, the ureter is sutured directly to a lower pole calyx after a modest partial nephrectomy is performed to remove parenchyma in the area of anastomosis.


Success Rates of Treatment Options


Endopyelotomy is a reasonable option in patients with mild-to-moderate hydronephrosis and reasonably good renal function. The stricture should be short (< 1.5 cm), and no crossing vessels should be defined on preoperative or intraoperative imaging (ie, intraluminal ultrasonography). Endopyelotomy may be the preferred option in patients in whom prior pyeloplasty has failed. Antegrade and retrograde approaches are equally efficacious.


Reported by Gill et al from the Cleveland clinic in 2002, endopyeloplasty essentially consists of horizontal suturing of a standard vertical endopyelotomy incision performed through a percutaneous tract via a 26F nephroscope.[6] Indications for endopyeloplasty include short-segment UPJ obstruction, an absence of crossing vessels, and an absence of prior surgery in the UPJ. Endopyeloplasty yields results comparable to those of endopyelotomy, but additional studies are needed for validation.

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty

This procedure is replacing open pyeloplasty as the criterion standard.[1] Most large series report 95% success rates. Unlike endopyelotomy, laparoscopic pyeloplasty can be offered to patients with severe hydronephrosis, crossing vessels, and long-segment strictures. However, the significant learning curve associated with laparoscopic suturing has limited its widespread use. In skilled hands, the indications for laparoscopic pyeloplasty may be extended to secondary UPJ obstruction, concomitant renal calculi, and anomalous and solitary kidneys. Salvage laparoscopic pyeloplasty is an excellent option with durable long-term outcomes in patients in whom open pyeloplasty has previously failed.[7]

The success rates of transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty and retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic pyeloplasty were comparable (96.4% versus 96.6%) during a mean follow-up of approximately 30 months in a prospective study of 112 patients with primary UPJ obstruction, but transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty was associated with significantly greater postoperative pain, a higher tramadol dose, a higher rate of temporary ileus, and a longer hospital stay. Total operative time was significantly higher for retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic pyeloplasty.[8]

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty

Robotic assistance is useful for surgeons who are obtaining experience with laparoscopic technique or for rare, complex cases for which suturing is challenging secondary to prior surgery or anatomic variants. The da Vinci robotic surgical system has been used successfully for laparoscopic reconstruction of the collecting system. The advantages of this system include degrees of suturing freedom in a tight surgical field, stereoscopic vision, tremor filtration, and scaling. The results are similar to those of conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. In the pediatric population, although only a few published series have addressed long-term outcomes, the short-term data suggest similar success in both traditional open and laparoscopic pyeloplasty, including treatment of the youngest children.[9, 10]

Single-site pyeloplasty

Recently, reports have described early experiences with laparoscopic single-site pyeloplasty, during which pyeloplasty is performed via a single port placed at the umbilicus. Conventional laparoendoscopic single-site (C-LESS) pyeloplasty is technically challenging owing to instrument clashing, loss of triangulation, and difficulty sewing. Adaption of the da Vinci Si robotic surgical platform to laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty appears to reduce the learning curve for this complex procedure. Long-term follow-up with single-site laparoscopic pyeloplasty is not yet available. Improved cosmesis and one large access port scar versus three 5-mm port sites are theoretical advantages with this approach.[11, 12, 13]


Preoperative Details

The preoperative workup includes the following:

  • History and physical examination
  • Evaluation of complete blood cell count, electrolytes, renal function, and coagulation profile
  • Radiographic and functional studies of the kidney in question
  • Evaluation of the normal contralateral kidney
  • Evaluation of peri-UPJ vascular anatomy
  • Anesthesia evaluation

Intraoperative Details

Techniques of surgical repair of an obstructed ureteropelvic junction

One of the goals of laparoscopy is to mirror open techniques, so most of the principles of surgical repair apply to both. In addition to creating a funnel with dependent drainage, care must be taken to minimize tissue handling and tension on the reconstructed UPJ. Whether to use ureteral stents or nephrostomy tubes after open or laparoscopic repair is based on personal preference.

Principles of endopyelotomy

Endopyelotomy may be performed either antegrade or retrograde, ureteroscopically. A safety guidewire must be placed within the ureter prior to endoscopic incision. Intraluminal ultrasonography or preoperative imaging is essential to define peri-UPJ vascular anatomy.

The endoscopic incision should be performed full-thickness through the UPJ and into perirenal fat with laser energy, electrocautery, or an endoscopic scalpel. To ensure a proper incision, extravasation of contrast should be seen on pyelography during the procedure. The incision is most commonly performed posterolaterally.

Balloon dilation is often performed after the incision is made to ensure completeness. Ureteral stenting for 4-8 weeks after the endoscopic procedure is common, although no consensus exists regarding size and duration of stents.


Postoperative Details

Risk factors for failure after endopyelotomy include the following:

  • Length of UPJ obstruction
  • Diminished renal function (< 25%)
  • Massive hydronephrosis with a redundant renal pelvis
  • Crossing vessels
  • Crossing vessels with massive hydronephrosis (worst outcome)


Prophylactic antibiotic therapy should be given postoperatively. Remove the endopyelotomy stent after 4-8 weeks.

Follow up with renal ultrasonography 1-3 months after surgery. In addition, follow up with IVP or nuclear medicine renal scan 3-6 months after surgery.

Serial renal imaging is recommended for the first year after surgery and should be continued less frequently thereafter if results have normalized.

For patient education information, see Intravenous Pyelogram and Adhesions, General and After Surgery.



Potential complications from open surgical pyeloplasty include UTI and pyelonephritis, urinary extravasation and leakage, recurrent ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction, or stricture formation. Treatment of urinary leakage is centered around catheter drainage, such as nephrostomy, ureteral stent, or perianastomotic drain, to direct urine away from the perianastomotic tissues and to decrease the risk of postoperative stricture disease.

Specific complications from endopyelotomy include significant intraoperative bleeding if the endoscopic incision is made inadvertently into a major polar vessel, postoperative infection, and recurrence of obstruction. If significant intraoperative bleeding is encountered with hypotension, emergency arteriography and embolization are indicated.


Outcome and Prognosis

Open and laparoscopic pyeloplasty yield long-term success rates that exceed 95%. The success rate for endopyelotomy approaches 80-90%.


Future and Controversies

The future of treatment of ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction will certainly include a broadening of the application of laparoscopic techniques. As laparoscopic pyeloplasty has gained acceptance and the surgical experience increased, the procedure has become shorter. The use of robotic assistance may broaden the application of laparoscopy.

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Michael Grasso, III, MD Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Urology, New York Medical College; Director, Living Related Kidney Transplantation, Westchester Medical Center; Director of Endourology, Lenox Hill Hospital

Michael Grasso, III, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Medical Society of the State of New York, National Kidney Foundation, Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, Societe Internationale d'Urologie (International Society of Urology), American Medical Association, American Urological Association, Endourological Society

Disclosure: Received consulting fee from Karl Storz Endoscopy for consulting.


Jordan S Gitlin, MD Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine-Yeshiva University; Consulting Staff, Pediatric Urology Associates PC

Jordan S Gitlin, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Urological Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

G Blake Johnson, MD Consulting Staff, Middleton Urology Associates

G Blake Johnson, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Urological Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Srinivas Rajamahanty, MD, MCh Staff Physician, Department of Urology, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Jacob H Cohen, MD, MPH Fellow in Endourology, Lenox Hill Hospital

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.

Shlomo Raz, MD Professor, Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine

Shlomo Raz, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Urological Association, California Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

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

Allen Donald Seftel, MD Professor of Urology, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School; Head, Division of Urology, Director, Urology Residency Training Program, Cooper University Hospital

Allen Donald Seftel, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Urological Association

Disclosure: Received consulting fee from lilly for consulting; Received consulting fee from abbott for consulting; Received consulting fee from auxilium for consulting; Received consulting fee from actient for consulting; Received honoraria from journal of urology for board membership; Received consulting fee from endo for consulting.

  1. Symons SJ, Bhirud PS, Jain V, Shetty AS, Desai MR. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: our new gold standard. J Endourol. 2009 Mar. 23(3):463-7. [Medline].

  2. El-Nahas AR, Abou-El-Ghar M, Shoma AM, Eraky I, El-Kenawy MR, El-Kappany H. Role of multiphasic helical computed tomography in planning surgical treatment for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. BJU Int. 2004 Sep. 94(4):582-7. [Medline].

  3. Conway JJ, Maizels M. The "well tempered" diuretic renogram: a standard method to examine the asymptomatic neonate with hydronephrosis or hydroureteronephrosis. A report from combined meetings of The Society for Fetal Urology and members of The Pediatric Nuclear Medicine C. J Nucl Med. 1992 Nov. 33(11):2047-51. [Medline].

  4. Kim S, Jacob JS, Kim DC, Rivera R, Lim RP, Lee VS. Time-resolved dynamic contrast-enhanced MR urography for the evaluation of ureteral peristalsis: initial experience. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Nov. 28(5):1293-8. [Medline].

  5. Ritter L, Götz G, Sorge I, Lehnert T, Hirsch FW, Bühligen U, et al. Significance of MR Angiography in the Diagnosis of Aberrant Renal Arteries as the Cause of Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Children. Rofo. 2015 Jan. 187(1):42-48. [Medline].

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

  7. Shapiro EY, Cho JS, Srinivasan A, Seideman CA, Huckabay CP, Andonian S, et al. Long-term follow-up for salvage laparoscopic pyeloplasty after failed open pyeloplasty. Urology. 2009 Jan. 73(1):115-8. [Medline].

  8. Singh V, Sinha RJ, Gupta DK, Kumar V, Pandey M, Akhtar A. Prospective randomized comparison between transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty and retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. JSLS. 2014 Jul. 18(3):[Medline]. [Full Text].

  9. Casale P. Robotic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. Curr Urol Rep. 2009 Jan. 10(1):55-9. [Medline].

  10. Casale P. Robotic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. Curr Opin Urol. 2009 Jan. 19(1):97-101. [Medline].

  11. Tugcu V, Sönmezay E, Ilbey YO, Polat H, Tasci AI. Transperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: initial experiences. J Endourol. 2010 Dec. 24(12):2023-7. [Medline].

  12. Stein RJ, Berger AK, Brandina R, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: a comparison with the standard laparoscopic technique. BJU Int. 2011 Mar. 107(5):811-5. [Medline].

  13. Seideman CA, Tan YK, Faddegon S, Park SK, Best SL, Cadeddu JA, et al. Robot-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty: technique using the da Vinci Si robotic platform. J Endourol. 2012 Aug. 26(8):971-4. [Medline].

  14. Bagley DH, Liu JB. Endoureteral sonography to define the anatomy of the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urol Clin North Am. 1998 May. 25(2):271-9. [Medline].

  15. Baniel J, Livne PM, Savir A. Dismembered pyeloplasty in children with and without stents. Eur Urol. 1996. 30(3):400-2. [Medline].

  16. Bartoli F, Penza R, Aceto G, et al. Urinary epidermal growth factor, monocyte chemotactic protein-1, and ß2-microglobulin in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Pediatr Surg. 2011 Mar. 46(3):530-6. [Medline].

  17. Boylu U, Oommen M, Lee BR, Thomas R. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction secondary to crossing vessels-to transpose or not? The robotic experience. J Urol. 2009 Apr. 181(4):1751-5. [Medline].

  18. Casale P, Grady RW, Joyner BD, Zeltser IS, Figueroa TE, Mitchell ME. Comparison of dismembered and nondismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient. J Endourol. 2004 Nov. 18(9):875-8. [Medline].

  19. Chow GK, Geisinger MA, Streem SB. Endopyelotomy outcome as a function of high versus dependent ureteral insertion. Urology. 1999 Dec. 54(6):999-1002. [Medline].

  20. el-Nahas AR, Shoma AM, Eraky I, el-Kenawy MR, el-Kappany HA. Prospective, randomized comparison of ureteroscopic endopyelotomy using holmium:YAG laser and balloon catheter. J Urol. 2006 Feb. 175(2):614-8; discussion 618. [Medline].

  21. El-Sherbiny MT, Mousa OM, Shokeir AA, Ghoneim MA. Role of urinary transforming growth factor-beta1 concentration in the diagnosis of upper urinary tract obstruction in children. J Urol. 2002 Oct. 168(4 Pt 2):1798-800. [Medline].

  22. Figenshau RS, Clayman RV. Endourologic options for management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in the pediatric patient. Urol Clin North Am. 1998 May. 25(2):199-209. [Medline].

  23. Frauscher F, Janetschek G, Helweg G. Crossing vessels at the ureteropelvic junction: detection with contrast- enhanced color Doppler imaging. Radiology. 1999 Mar. 210(3):727-31. [Medline].

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

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

  26. Kajbafzadeh AM, Elmi A, Talab SS, Emami H, Esfahani SA, Saeedi P. Urinary and serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 as a biomarker in ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. J Urol. 2010 Jun. 183(6):2353-60. [Medline].

  27. Kumar R, Kapoor R, Mandhani A. Optimum duration of splinting after endopyelotomy. J Endourol. 1999 Mar. 13(2):89-92. [Medline].

  28. Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA. Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol. 2006 Feb. 175(2):683-7; discussion 687. [Medline].

  29. Lopez-Pujals A, Leveillee RJ, Wong C. Application of strict radiologic criteria to define success in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2004 Oct. 18(8):756-60. [Medline].

  30. Matlaga BR, Shah OD, Singh D, Streem SB, Assimos DG. Ureterocalicostomy: a contemporary experience. Urology. 2005 Jan. 65(1):42-4. [Medline].

  31. McDaniel BB, Jones RA, Scherz H, Kirsch AJ, Little SB, Grattan-Smith JD. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR urography in the evaluation of pediatric hydronephrosis: Part 2, anatomic and functional assessment of uteropelvic junction obstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Dec. 185(6):1608-14. [Medline].

  32. Mitterberger M, Pinggera GM, Neururer R, Peschel R, Colleselli D, Aigner F, et al. Comparison of contrast-enhanced color Doppler imaging (CDI), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of crossing vessels in patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Eur Urol. 2008 Jun. 53(6):1254-60. [Medline].

  33. Murakumo M, Nonomura K, Yamashita T, Ushiki T, Abe K, Koyanagi T. Structural changes of collagen components and diminution of nerves in congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol. 1997 May. 157(5):1963-8. [Medline].

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

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

  36. Patel V. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology. 2005 Jul. 66(1):45-9. [Medline].

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

  38. Richstone L, Seideman CA, Reggio E, Bluebond-Langner R, Pinto PA, Trock B, et al. Pathologic Findings in Patients With Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction and Crossing Vessels. Urology. 2009 Feb 2. [Medline].

  39. Rooks VJ, Lebowitz RL. Extrinsic ureteropelvic junction obstruction from a crossing renal vessel: demography and imaging. Pediatr Radiol. 2001 Feb. 31(2):120-4. [Medline].

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

  41. Siddiq FM, Leveillee RJ, Villicana P, Bird VG. Computer-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: University of Miami experience with the daVinci Surgical System. J Endourol. 2005 Apr. 19(3):387-92. [Medline].

  42. Smith AD, Horgan JD. Endopyelotomy and Pyeloplasty. Clinical Urology. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott; 1994. 433-43.

  43. Thomas DF. Fetal uropathy. Br J Urol. 1990 Sep. 66(3):225-31. [Medline].

  44. Wang Y, Puri P, Hassan J, Miyakita H, Reen DJ. 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].

  45. Yurkanin JP, Fuchs GJ. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloureteroplasty: a single institution's 3-year experience. J Endourol. 2004 Oct. 18(8):765-9. [Medline].

Intravenous pyelogram demonstrating ureteropelvic junction obstruction with dilatation of the collecting system and lack of excretion of contrast.
Retrograde pyelogram demonstrating ureteropelvic junction obstruction secondary to annular stricture.
Retrograde pyelogram demonstrating ureteropelvic junction obstruction secondary to crossing vessels.
Intraluminal sonogram of ureteropelvic junction obstruction demonstrating multiple crossing vessels.
CT scan without contrast demonstrating severe left-sided hydronephrosis secondary to ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
CT scan with intravenous contrast demonstrating pooling of contrast and delayed excretion of contrast from a left-sided ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
Intraluminal sonogram demonstrating the renal vein surrounding the ureteropelvic junction and causing extrinsic compression and obstruction.
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.