Objective: There are 2 critical steps of stent placement during laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) in children. Introduction to the ureteropelvic junction and passing through the ureterovesical junction. We aimed at overcoming those 2 steps by creating a modified technique. Methods: Consecutive 27 children undergoing transperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty by a single surgeon were prospectively enrolled into this study. The modifications of our technique are using an Amplatz dilator and a closed tip stent. Results: The mean age of the children was 6.7 (range 4 months-17 years). The mean time of stent insertion was 2.7 ± 2.0 (2-6) min and the operative time was 128.3 ± 17.6 (90-180) min. The mean number of days of hospital stay was 2.0 ± 0.4 (1-3). After a mean follow-up period of 20.3 ± 4.2 (14-30) months, no operative failure was detected. Conclusion: Our modified technique is a completion of the current armamentarium for stent placement during LP in infants and children.

1.
El-Shazly MA, Moon DA, Eden CG: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: status and review of literature. J Endourol 2007;21:673-678.
2.
Tekgül S, Riedmiller H, Dogan HS, Hoebeke P, Kocvara R, Nijman R, Radmayr C, Stein R: EAU guidelines on paediatric urology. 2013. http://www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/ (accessed July 6,).
3.
Mei H, Pu J, Yang C, Zhang H, Zheng L, Tong Q: Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 2011;25:727-736.
4.
Nerli RB, Reddy M, Prabha V, Koura A, Patne P, Ganesh MK: Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. Pediatr Surg Int 2009;25:343-347.
5.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.
6.
Mandhani A, Goel S, Bhandari M: Is antegrade stenting superior to retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty? J Urol 2004;171:1440-1442.
7.
Chen Z, Chen X, Luo YC: Technical modifications of double-J stenting for retroperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children under 5 years old. PLoS One 2011;6:e23073.
8.
Chandrasekharam VV: A simple technique of ureteric spatulation & handling during laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants & children. J Pediatr Urol 2013;9:384-387.
9.
Helmy TE, Harraz A, Sharaf DE, El Demerdash Y, Hafez AT, Gad H, Dawaba M: Can renal ultrasonography predict early success after pyeloplasty in children? A prospective study. Urol Int 2014;93:406-410.
10.
Kallidonis P, Georgiopoulos I, Kyriazis I, Al-Aown A, Kontogiannis S, Stolzenburg JU, Liatsikos EN: ‘Scarless' laparoscopic urologic surgery by the combination of mini-laparoscopic and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery equipment. Urol Int 2014;92:414-421.
11.
Chandrasekharam VV: Is retrograde stenting more reliable than antegrade stenting for pyeloplasty in infants and children? Urology 2005;66:1301-1304.
12.
Helmy T, Blanc T, Paye-Jaouen A, El-Ghoneimi A: Preliminary experience with external ureteropelvic stent: alternative to double-j stent in laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 2011;185:1065-1069.
13.
Eassa W, Al Zahrani A, Jednak R, El-Sherbiny M, Capolicchio JP: A novel technique of stenting for laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. J Pediatr Urol 2012;8:77-82.
14.
Arumainayagam N, Minervini A, Davenport K, Kumar V, Masieri L, Serni S, Carini M, Timoney AG, Keeley FX Jr: Antegrade versus retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2008;22:671-674.
15.
Ganpule A, Bhattu A, Mishra S, Desai MR: Ultrasound-guided antegrade access during laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants less than one year of age: a point of technique. J Minim Access Surg 2012;8:107-110.
16.
Noh PH, Defoor WR, Reddy PP: Percutaneous antegrade ureteral stent placement during pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2011;25:1847-1851.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.