| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3878112 | The Journal of Urology | 2006 | 5 Pages |
PurposeWe compared the safety and efficacy of the 2 retrograde endopyelotomy techniques.Materials and MethodsA prospective study was done from January 2001 to October 2003. Preoperative radiological evaluation included excretory urography, multiphasic helical computerized tomography and diuretic renography. Exclusion criteria were marked hydronephrosis, ipsilateral renal function less than 25% and renal stones or a significant crossing vessel at the ureteropelvic junction. Eligible patients were randomized to ureteroscopic laser endopyelotomy and retrograde Acucise™ endopyelotomy (20 per group). UPJ obstruction was primary in 14 patients and secondary in 26. The ureteropelvic junction was incised in the lateral direction and an endopyelotomy Double-J stent (Medical Engineering Corp., New York, New York) was left for 6 weeks. Subjective and objective outcomes were evaluated 3 and 6 months after stent removal, and every 6 months thereafter.ResultsMean operative time ± SD was comparable in the laser and Acucise™ groups (64.7 ± 22.4 and 58.7 ± 20.2, respectively). The overall complication rate in the Acucise™ group was more than in the laser group (25% vs 10%). At a mean followup of 29.9 ± 10.8 months (range 6 to 48) the laser group showed a higher success rate than the Acucise™ group (85% vs 65%) but the difference in the complication and success rates was not statistically significant.ConclusionsDespite the advanced endourological skills required for ureteroscopic laser endopyelotomy its safety and efficacy seem to be better than those of Acucise™ endopyelotomy. However, a larger number of patients is needed to confirm these findings.
