Matched comparison of primary versus salvage laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

PURPOSE: To compare our experience with salvage laparoscopic pyeloplasty, using a matched control set of primary laparoscopic pyeloplasty patients.

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent laparoscopic pyeloplasty from 1996 to 2014 by a single surgeon. At least 12 months of follow-up was required. Salvage patients were matched 1:3 with primary patients. Matching was based on age ±5 years, body mass index (BMI) ±5, and type of pyeloplasty (dismembered vs. non-dismembered). Primary outcome was failure as defined as re-intervention following laparoscopic pyeloplasty (does not include temporary stenting without definitive retreatment).

RESULTS: Of 128 laparoscopic pyeloplasty procedures, ten were salvage. These patients were matched to 26 patients who underwent a primary laparoscopic pyeloplasty in a 1:3 manner. One salvage pyeloplasty failed to match due to BMI, and the closest matches were made. Four salvage patients had one overlapping match, reducing the primary group to 26 patients. There were no differences in pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables between groups, except for operative time (salvage 247 min, primary 175 min, p = 0.03). With similar duration of radiologic and symptomatic follow-up, there was no significant difference in the rate of freedom from intervention.

CONCLUSION: When matching for factors that could affect success, salvage laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed as well as primary pyeloplasty except for a longer operative time. In experienced hands, salvage laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction recurrence after prior pyeloplasty is a safe and effective procedure, and should be considered an excellent alternative to the more commonly recommended endopyelotomy.