Search

Use of metallic stents (Resonance) has been reported in the literature to be effective in relieving extrinsic obstruction in adults. Successful patency rates have been reported to be around 83.3%. The use of Resonance stents in children has not been reported. We present our experience with these stents in addressing extrinsic ureteral obstruction in the pediatric population.We identified two patients who underwent placement of Resonance stents for extrinsic compression at the Children's Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. The first patient is a 12-year-old girl with a solitary left kidney who had a diagnosis of pelvic rhabdomyosarcoma; she was treated with surgery followed by adjuvant chemoradiation. Two years post-treatment, worsening renal function secondary to ureteral strictures developed. The second patient is a 14-year-old girl with a history of Gardner syndrome. Recurrent desmoid tumors developed in her pelvis and retroperitoneum that led to right ureteral obstruction, necessitating a nephrostomy tube.Both patients underwent successful technical placement of a Resonance stent. The time to failure for patient 1 was 3 months and for patient 2, 3 weeks. The first patient presented to the emergency department 3 months poststent in renal failure with a creatinine level of 13.7 mg/dL. This necessitated nephrostomy tube placement and hemodialysis. Ultimately, she needed an ileal ureter to preserve renal function. She is off hemodialysis and has a creatinine level of 2.2 mg/dL.The second patient, recurrent episodes of pyelonephritis, worsening hydronephrosis, and flank pain developed with just the Resonance stent in place. It was elected to remove the Resonance stent and replace the nephrostomy tube. She needed extensive ureterolysis, a right subtotal ureterectomy with a right to left ureteroureterostomy.We did not find the use of these stents to be effective in children. The time to failure was significantly shorter in children than those reported in the literature for adults.

We evaluated percutaneous access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) that was obtained by interventional radiologists or urologists at a single academic institution and compared access outcomes and complications.The records of 233 patients who underwent PCNL at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between 2000 and 2008 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were stratified according to percutaneous access by urologists (group 1) or a group of interventional radiologists (group 2) in 195 and 38 patients, respectively. Radiologist-acquired access was performed for collecting system decompression in 33.3% of patients in group 2. A predicted access difficulty score was calculated using demographic, stone, and operative variables. Percutaneous access complications and stone-free rates were compared between groups.Mean patient age was 53 ± 16 years (51% male, range 19-90 y) and 58 ± 17 years (62% male, range 25-95 y) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Use of multiple access tracts (4.3% vs 5.4%; P = 0.54), mean stone diameter (3.5 ± 1.8 cm vs 3.6 ± 1.9 cm; P = 0.97), and percentage of supracostal tracts (36% vs 35%; P = 0.63) were comparable between groups. Mean access difficulty parameters were comparable between groups. The percentage of staghorn calculi (39% vs 30%; P = 0.28) and number of obese (body mass index30) patients (30% vs 38%; P = 0.34) were also comparable between groups 1 and 2. The complication rate was the same in the two groups (14.3% vs 13.5%; P = 0.52). The overall stone-free rate was significantly greater in the urology access group (99% vs 92.1%; P = 0.033) on univariate analysis. Radiologist-obtained access could not be used in 36.8% of patients, necessitating additional access tract placement at the time of surgery.Urologist-obtained access is safe and effective for PCNL. Access obtained by radiologists for decompression of infected or obstructed systems often is not adequate for PCNL. Despite similar stone complexity and access difficulty, urologist-obtained access was associated with a statistically significant improvement in overall stone-free rate.

To review our experience with laparoscopic ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) release in the treatment of UPJ obstruction (UPJO) in adults.We retrospectively reviewed 44 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic treatment of UPJO at our institution between December 2000 and April 2008. Patient characteristics, perioperative data, intraoperative findings leading to a decision to perform UPJ release, and outcomes were recorded. Mean patient age was 47.4 years (range 20-60 years).UPJ release was performed as definitive treatment in 9 of 47 laparoscopic procedures for UPJO. The obstruction was right-sided in five and left-sided in four patients. Three (33%) patients were previously treated with either balloon dilation or endopyelotomy, or both. Intraoperative findings included (1) significant scarring, inflammation, or fibrosis, (2) adherent bands between a crossing vessel and the UPJ, or (3) obvious constricting periureteral bands. A crossing vessel was observed in seven patients (78%). Mean operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were 370.1 +/- 76.9 minutes, 24.4 +/- 31.3 mL, and 1.4 +/- 0.5 days, respectively. At a mean follow-up of 25.1 +/- 17.3 months, a 78% overall success rate was achieved. UPJ release was most successful in the patients in the "significant scarring, inflammation, or fibrosis" category (100%).Although pyeloplasty remains the preferred treatment for UPJO, UPJ release can be successful in certain circumstances, particularly when significant scarring, inflammation, or fibrosis appears to be the primary etiology of the obstruction. Further investigation is warranted to help define the specific clinical situations in which UPJ release may be beneficial.