Salvage Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in the Worst Case Scenario: After Failed Open Repair and Endoscopic Salvage

Objectives

We present the video of a laparoscopic correction of a left ureteropelvic junction obstruction in a patient who has already undergone previous surgical open pyeloplasty and subsequent acucise for failure of the first surgery. At 8 years after the second surgery, the patient showed a recurrence of the obstruction of the left ureteropelvic junction.

It was decided to perform the retroperitoneal laparoscopic correction of the obstruction.

Materials and Methods

With the patient placed in a 90° flank position, 4 trocars are placed in the retroperitoneum space by the Hasson tecnique.

After the creation of the retroperitoneum space, the Gerota's fascia is opened. The posterior layer of the Gerota's fascia appears very thickened at the level of the lower pole of the kidney and is very adherent with the surrounding structures, in particular the psoas muscle.

Gerota's fascia is incised and removed from the previous surgery and the psoas muscle is identified. The distal lumbar ureter is tenaciously anchored to the psoas muscle. The lower pole of the kidney is freed from the adhesions of the previous surgery. The proximal ureter is hardly isolable for the presence of fibrosis. The renal pelvis is fixed to the psoas due to fibrotic tissue that is cut with scissors. Once the pelvis and the ureter are separated from the psoas, the surgery proceeds with the liberation of the pelvis from the adipose tissue and fibrosis that surround it. The pieloureteral obstruction is not easily identifiable. The renal pelvis is opened at the level of the ureteral junction, the ureter is spatulated on its medial side. The scar tissue is removed until well vascularized tissue is seen. The anastomosis between the ureter and pelvis is performed with 2 semicontinuous running sutures. Once the anterior plate of the anastomosis is completed a cystoscopic retrograde DJ ureteral stent insertion is performed. The procedure ends with the packaging of the posterior plate of the anastomosis with the second running suture.

Results

The operation lasted 180 minutes. The postoperative course was uneventful, the drain was removed on the second day and the bladder catheter on the 4th. The patient was discharged on the 5th day and the DJ ureteral stent was removed on the 21st post-operative day.

Discussion

The laparoscopic reoperation in patients with previous open surgery interventions is definitely difficult. This kind of surgery has to be carried out after having gained considerable laparoscopy experience. Specifically, the reoperation of laparoscopic pyeloplasty after 2 previous intervention poses the following difficulties: the creation of appropriate space, dissection of the ureter and pelvis from the psoas muscle, appropriate mobilization of the lower pole of the kidney to get a “tension free” anastomosis, liberation of the pelvis and ureter from the tenaciously adherent fibrotic tissue, identification of the stenotic ureteropelvic junction.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty after failure of past interventions remains a difficult procedure that should only be performed after major laparoscopic experience. In experienced hands, redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty provides high success rates.