Skip to main content

Pyeloplasty

Pyeloplasty is the definitive reconstructive operation for clinically significant ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Across open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted approaches, durable success usually exceeds 90%, and Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty remains the reference operation because it excises the diseased UPJ, permits dependent funnel-shaped reconstruction, and handles crossing vessels cleanly.[1][2][3]

This page is the operative technique article. For the disease workup, see UPJ Obstruction. For functional imaging thresholds, see MAG3 renal scintigraphy. For cross-cutting upper-tract reconstruction principles, see Upper Tract Reconstruction Principles.[4][5][6]

Operative Indications​

Pyeloplasty is chosen when obstruction is clinically meaningful, anatomically reconstructable, and the renal unit has salvageable function.[1][4][7]

Pediatric patients​

Most antenatal hydronephrosis is observed first. Even among infants with high-grade hydronephrosis, only a subset ultimately requires surgery, so the pediatric decision is based on trajectory rather than one ultrasound alone.[4][8][9]

Operate for:

  • declining differential renal function on serial renography,
  • progressive hydronephrosis or parenchymal thinning,
  • recurrent febrile UTI attributable to obstruction,
  • pain, stones, hematuria, or failure to thrive from obstruction,
  • worsening UTD/SFU grade despite surveillance.[4][8][9]

Adult patients​

Adult UPJO is more symptom-driven. Pyeloplasty is indicated for flank pain with documented obstruction, recurrent pyelonephritis, stones from stasis, declining function, or symptomatic equivocal obstruction when the clinical pattern is compelling.[1][7][10] In one adult RALP series, success remained high even when preoperative MAG3 obstruction severity was equivocal, emphasizing that symptoms, anatomy, and renal function must be interpreted together rather than reduced to T1/2 alone.[10]

Preoperative Planning​

The preoperative plan should answer four questions before incision:

  1. Is this true obstruction? MAG3 or DTPA renography distinguishes obstructive drainage from nonobstructive dilation; T1/2 >20 minutes is classically obstructive, while 10-20 minutes is equivocal and must be interpreted with the curve, symptoms, hydronephrosis, and differential function.[5][11]
  2. Where exactly is the transition point? CT urography, MR urography, retrograde pyelography, and operative inspection define whether the lesion is a short UPJ problem, a longer proximal ureteral stricture, a high insertion, or a salvage anatomy.[11][12]
  3. Is a crossing vessel present? Lower-pole vessels are common in UPJO and alter the operation: they favor dismembered pyeloplasty with anterior transposition and strongly disfavor endopyelotomy.[13][14]
  4. Is the kidney worth reconstruction? Differential renal function, cortical thickness, symptoms, infection history, stones, and patient goals determine reconstruction versus drainage, observation, or nephrectomy.[1][12]
StudyWhat It AddsPractical Use
UltrasoundHydronephrosis grade, AP diameter, parenchymal thicknessSurveillance and pediatric progression tracking
MAG3/DTPA renographyDrainage curve and differential renal functionConfirms functional obstruction and baseline function
CT urographyStones, crossing vessels, renal pelvis anatomy, secondary causesAdult operative planning and complex anatomy
MR urographyRadiation-free anatomy and functional dataPediatric, pregnancy, contrast/radiation avoidance
Retrograde pyelographyExact transition point and stricture lengthEquivocal or reoperative cases, often at time of surgery

Contrasted CT can also approximate functional category in selected adults: cortical area multiplied by cortical Hounsfield units correlates strongly with MAG3 differential renal function and may confidently classify some kidneys as clearly functional or clearly nonfunctional.[12]

Choosing the Operation​

Technique choice follows the anatomy encountered at the UPJ.

AnatomyPreferred OperationWhy
Intrinsic UPJ stenosis, redundant pelvis, crossing vessel, or uncertain mechanismAnderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplastyExcises the diseased segment, reduces pelvis, permits vascular transposition
Short intrinsic stenosis, small pelvis, no crossing vesselFenger plastyHeineke-Mikulicz widening with minimal suturing
High ureteral insertion, small or intrarenal pelvis, no crossing vesselFoley Y-V plasty or anterior Y-V modificationAdvances pelvic flap into ureter without transection
Long UPJ/proximal narrowing with generous pelvisCulp-DeWeerd or Scardino-Prince flapPelvic flap bridges a longer defect
Pure extrinsic pediatric obstruction by crossing vesselVascular hitchAvoids collecting-system opening only if intraoperative diuretic test proves no intrinsic stenosis
Short recurrent stricture without crossing vessel or severe hydronephrosisEndopyelotomy, selectivelyLower morbidity but less durable than pyeloplasty
Dense redo UPJ, intrarenal pelvis, inaccessible renal pelvisRedo pyeloplasty or ureterocalicostomyFormal salvage reconstruction is more durable than repeat temporizing

The key rule: nondismembered operations are selection-dependent, not inferior shortcuts. They perform well when the UPJ is short, intrinsic, nonredundant, and free of a crossing vessel; they fail conceptually when they are asked to solve the wrong anatomy.[14][15][16]

Anderson-Hynes Dismembered Pyeloplasty​

Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty remains the default because it solves the largest number of UPJO mechanisms with one design: resect the nonfunctional junction, preserve blood supply, create a dependent wide anastomosis, and transpose the ureter anterior to lower-pole vessels when present.[1][2][6]

Setup and exposure​

  • Position depends on approach: flank/open, transperitoneal robotic/laparoscopic, or retroperitoneal minimally invasive.
  • Expose the renal pelvis and proximal ureter with minimal periureteral stripping.
  • Identify lower-pole crossing vessels early and preserve them.
  • Mobilize only enough ureter and pelvis to create a tension-free repair.

Core steps​

  1. Define the UPJ. Confirm the transition from renal pelvis to normal ureter and identify intrinsic narrowing, high insertion, kinking, fibrosis, stone disease, or vessel compression.
  2. Transect and excise the diseased segment. Resect to healthy ureter and viable pelvis.
  3. Spatulate the ureter laterally. A 1-2 cm lateral spatulation creates a broad dependent opening.
  4. Trim the pelvis selectively. Reduce redundant pelvis only enough to create a dependent funnel; over-resection can create tension.
  5. Place the apical stitch. The lowest point of ureteral spatulation is joined to the most dependent corner of the renal pelvis. This stitch sets the geometry of the repair.
  6. Run or interrupt the posterior wall. Use fine absorbable suture, typically 5-0 or 6-0 in adults and children depending on tissue size.
  7. Place drainage. Most surgeons place a double-J stent before completing the anterior wall; external or stentless strategies are acceptable in selected pediatric or experienced settings.
  8. Complete the anterior wall. The anastomosis should be mucosa-to-mucosa, watertight, broad, and not strangulated.
  9. Transpose around vessels when needed. If a lower-pole vessel was compressing the UPJ, the ureteropelvic anastomosis is brought anterior to the vessel.

The ureter-first modification standardizes the operation by opening the ureter just below the UPJ first, then trimming the pelvis only after the true ureteral length and lower pelvic lip are known. This reduces the chance of trimming away the tissue needed for a tension-free dependent funnel.[6]

Anastomotic details that matter

The anastomosis is not a narrow tube; it is a dependent funnel. In pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty, 1 mm suture bites reduced postoperative drainage and accelerated hydronephrosis improvement without increasing stenosis. Continuous suturing shortens operative time without a clear success or complication penalty compared with interrupted suturing.[17][18]

Nondismembered Pyeloplasty​

Nondismembered operations widen the UPJ without completely transecting the ureter from the pelvis. Their advantage is simpler suturing and preserved continuity; their limitation is that they cannot reliably excise diseased tissue, transpose a crossing vessel, or reduce a massively redundant pelvis unless modified.[14][15][16]

Fenger plasty​

Fenger plasty applies the Heineke-Mikulicz principle: a longitudinal incision is made through the stenotic UPJ and closed transversely. It is best for short-segment intrinsic stenosis with a small to moderate pelvis and no crossing vessel.[15][19]

Advantages:

  • fastest and simplest nondismembered option,
  • few sutures,
  • useful in retroperitoneoscopic or laparoscopic settings where complex suturing is undesirable.

Limitations:

  • no ability to transpose a crossing vessel,
  • no meaningful pelvic reduction,
  • poor fit for high insertion or long strictures.

Foley Y-V plasty​

Foley Y-V plasty advances a V-shaped pelvic flap into the ureteral incision. It is classically used for high ureteral insertion, small or intrarenal pelvis, and intrinsic obstruction without a crossing vessel.[16][20]

The anterior Y-V modification places the flap and suture lines on the anterior renal pelvis, simplifying laparoscopic access; a modified Y-V with elliptic pelvic reduction can extend the technique to selected redundant-pelvis anatomy.[20][21]

Culp-DeWeerd and Scardino-Prince flaps​

Pelvic flap pyeloplasty uses renal pelvic tissue to bridge a longer narrowed UPJ/proximal ureteral segment. Culp-DeWeerd uses a spiral/rotational flap; Scardino-Prince uses a vertical dependent flap. These are uncommon but useful when a generous pelvis is available and a standard dismembered anastomosis would be under tension.[14][22]

Dismembered V-flap​

The Diamond-Nguyen dismembered V-flap is a hybrid: the UPJ is transected, but a V-shaped pelvic flap is advanced into the spatulated ureter to create a dependent funnel. It is useful for high insertion or selected redo anatomy where a standard repair would be tight.[23]

Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approaches​

The reconstructive design is the same regardless of access route. The difference is morbidity, working space, suturing ergonomics, cost, and surgeon experience.[2][24][25]

ApproachTypical SuccessStrengthsLimitations
Open pyeloplasty90-99%Universal access, tactile feedback, reliable for redo/complex anatomyMore pain, larger incision, longer recovery
Laparoscopic pyeloplasty88-98%Minimally invasive durability with low cost compared with roboticsSteep learning curve for intracorporeal suturing
Robot-assisted pyeloplasty92-100%Suturing ergonomics, shorter learning curve, shorter length of stay in many seriesCost, access, docking/OR-time variability

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) has become the dominant minimally invasive operation where robotic access exists. Pediatric meta-analysis shows similar success and complications to open repair with shorter length of stay, while comparative meta-analysis suggests RALP may reduce operative time, complications, and length of stay compared with conventional laparoscopy, though evidence quality is limited.[24][25]

In adults, long-term RALP data show durable failure-free survival beyond 8 years, and contemporary NSQIP data confirm that most pyeloplasties are now performed minimally invasively with shorter hospitalization and fewer infectious complications than open surgery.[3][26]

Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal​

  • Transperitoneal access offers a larger working space and is most common.
  • Retroperitoneal access provides direct UPJ exposure, avoids bowel mobilization, and is attractive after prior abdominal surgery or for posteriorly accessible kidneys.

A 10-year retroperitoneal RALP experience reported high success, median one-night hospitalization, and low major-complication rates, supporting retroperitoneal access as a mature alternative rather than a niche workaround.[27]

Infants​

Open pyeloplasty remains common in very small infants, but RALP is increasingly reported as safe and effective in selected infants at experienced centers. The decision is driven by patient size, working distance, anesthesia factors, institutional experience, and the need to avoid compromising the reconstruction for access convenience.[9][28]

Stenting and Drainage​

Postoperative drainage is a trade-off between leak risk, tube/stent morbidity, cost, and the need for a second anesthetic in children.[29][30][31]

StrategyAdvantagesTrade-offs
Internal double-J stentLowest urine leak signal in pediatric network meta-analysis; familiarCystoscopic removal in many children, stent symptoms, cost
External transanastomotic stentAvoids cystoscopic removal; favorable cost-effectivenessExternal tube care, more leakage than DJ in some analyses
StentlessShorter operative time and less stent morbidity in selected handsHigher leak risk; best reserved for favorable repairs and reliable follow-up

Pediatric network meta-analysis found no significant difference in operative success, hospital stay, renal function improvement, or overall complications among DJ, external, and stentless pyeloplasty, but urine leak patterns and cost differed.[29][32] Adult stentless laparoscopic or robotic pyeloplasty is feasible in selected cases, but most surgeons still stent routine repairs.[30][33]

Vascular Hitch​

The vascular hitch, or Hellstrom-Chapman concept, relocates a lower-pole crossing vessel cranially to relieve extrinsic compression without opening the collecting system. It is not a substitute for pyeloplasty in ordinary UPJO; it is a narrow operation for pure extrinsic obstruction.[13][34][35]

Strict selection criteria:

  • pediatric or young patient with imaging suggesting crossing-vessel compression,
  • no evidence of intrinsic narrowing,
  • preserved UPJ peristalsis and caliber once the vessel is lifted,
  • intraoperative diuretic test confirms free drainage after vessel displacement.

If drainage remains impaired after lifting the vessel, the patient has intrinsic or mixed UPJO and should receive dismembered pyeloplasty. Failures of vascular hitch are usually failures of selection: the operation treated the vessel but left the stenotic UPJ behind.[13][34]

Endopyelotomy​

Endopyelotomy incises the UPJ endoscopically and stents the defect to heal open. It is less invasive than pyeloplasty but less durable, especially with crossing vessels, long strictures, severe hydronephrosis, or poor renal function.[14][36][37]

Best candidates:

  • primary short intrinsic UPJ narrowing,
  • no crossing vessel,
  • preserved renal function,
  • mild to moderate hydronephrosis,
  • patient preference for lower morbidity despite lower durability.

Avoid endopyelotomy when there is a crossing vessel, stricture length greater than about 2 cm, severe hydronephrosis, markedly impaired differential function, active infection, or secondary ischemic/reoperative narrowing where definitive reconstruction is feasible.[14][36][37]

Long-term comparative data are the caution: recurrence-free survival declines substantially over time after endopyelotomy, while pyeloplasty remains more durable. Endopyelotomy may still have a selective salvage role after failed pyeloplasty when the recurrent segment is short and anatomy is favorable.[36][38]

Failed Pyeloplasty​

Failure usually declares itself within the first year, but late failures occur; persistent or recurrent pain, febrile UTI, stones, worsening hydronephrosis, or obstructed drainage warrants reassessment.[3][39]

Redo pyeloplasty​

Redo pyeloplasty provides the best salvage outcomes for most recurrent UPJO and is increasingly performed robotically. Pediatric reoperative laparoscopic and robotic series report high symptom resolution and radiographic improvement when the recurrent obstruction is reconstructed rather than repeatedly dilated.[40][41]

Salvage ladder​

Salvage ProblemReconstruction
Short recurrent UPJ scar with usable pelvisRedo dismembered pyeloplasty
Intrarenal pelvis or inaccessible scarred renal pelvisUreterocalicostomy
Long proximal ureteral loss with usable ureteral plateBuccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty
Extensive ureteral diseaseIleal ureter replacement, transureteroureterostomy, or renal autotransplantation
Nonfunctional symptomatic renal unitNephrectomy after careful functional and patient-goal assessment

In a prospective multicenter failed-pyeloplasty cohort, predictors of secondary surgical failure included multiple prior pyeloplasties, preoperative indwelling double-J stent, and reduced ipsilateral parenchymal thickness.[42] Balloon dilation has the highest failure signal among common salvage options and should be reserved for selected low-complexity recurrences.[42]

Outcomes and Follow-up​

Successful pyeloplasty is defined by symptom relief, improved or stable hydronephrosis, unobstructed drainage, and preserved or improved differential renal function. Imaging often lags symptoms; persistent postoperative hydronephrosis alone does not equal failure if drainage and clinical course are improving.[1][3][7]

Follow-up commonly includes:

  • renal ultrasound after stent removal or within the first several months,
  • MAG3/DTPA renography when symptoms persist, ultrasound worsens, or baseline function was threatened,
  • longer surveillance in children, solitary kidneys, redo repairs, severe preoperative hydronephrosis, or equivocal postoperative imaging.

Two independent predictors of decreased freedom from secondary procedures in a large minimally invasive pyeloplasty collaborative cohort were prior endopyelotomy and intraoperative crossing vessels. Surgical platform itself was not an independent predictor after adjustment.[43]

Complications​

Major complications are uncommon across approaches, but the same failure modes recur:

  • urine leak or urinoma,
  • UTI or pyelonephritis,
  • stent migration, encrustation, symptoms, or retained stent,
  • ileus or bowel injury with transperitoneal access,
  • bleeding or vascular injury,
  • recurrent obstruction,
  • persistent pain despite patent drainage.[24][26][44]

Minimally invasive approaches generally reduce blood loss, incision morbidity, length of stay, and convalescence while preserving functional success when performed by teams comfortable with reconstructive suturing.[2][24][44]

Operative Pearls​

  • Default to dismembered pyeloplasty when anatomy is uncertain, the pelvis is redundant, a crossing vessel is present, or intrinsic disease is likely.
  • Do not perform vascular hitch unless the obstruction disappears intraoperatively after the vessel is lifted.
  • Make the anastomosis a funnel, not a ring. The dependent apical stitch determines the repair.
  • Preserve periureteral adventitia. Over-mobilization can turn a short UPJ problem into an ischemic proximal ureter problem.
  • Do not overtreat postoperative hydronephrosis. Trend symptoms, drainage, parenchyma, and function together.
  • Treat failed pyeloplasty as reconstruction, not repetition. Define the recurrent anatomy and escalate to ureterocalicostomy, graft, bowel, or autotransplantation when native redo repair cannot be tension-free.

References​

1. Khan F, Ahmed K, Lee N, et al. Management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. Nat Rev Urol. 2014;11(11):629-638. doi:10.1038/nrurol.2014.240

2. Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, et al. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):430-452. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.06.053

3. Hopf HL, Bahler CD, Sundaram CP. Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2016;90:106-110. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2015.12.050

4. Cai PY, Lee RS. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction/hydronephrosis. Urol Clin North Am. 2023;50(3):361-369. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2023.04.001

5. Taylor AT, Brandon DC, de Palma D, et al. SNMMI procedure standard/EANM practice guideline for diuretic renal scintigraphy in adults with suspected upper urinary tract obstruction 1.0. Semin Nucl Med. 2018;48(4):377-390. doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2018.02.010

6. Nayyar R, Kumar P, Panaiyadiyan S, Seth A. Ureter-first approach and reduction of pelvis: standardizing handling of ureteropelvic junction during pyeloplasty. Urology. 2022;160:210-216. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.10.030

7. Zappia JL, Farrow JM, Song L, et al. Outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty based on degree of obstruction on preoperative Tc-99 MAG-3 renal scintigraphy. J Endourol. 2023;37(2):151-156. doi:10.1089/end.2022.0463

8. Weitz M, Portz S, Laube GF, Meerpohl JJ, Bassler D. Surgery versus non-surgical management for unilateral ureteric-pelvic junction obstruction in newborns and infants less than two years of age. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;7:CD010716. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010716.pub2

9. Herndon CDA, Otero HJ, Hains D, Sweeney RM, Lockwood GM. Perinatal urinary tract dilation: recommendations on pre-/postnatal imaging, prophylactic antibiotics, and follow-up: clinical report. Pediatrics. 2025;156(1):e2025071814. doi:10.1542/peds.2025-071814

10. Diamond DA, Chan IHY, Holland AJA, et al. Advances in paediatric urology. Lancet. 2017;390(10099):1061-1071. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32282-1

11. Whitworth P, Courtney KG, Oto A, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Hydronephrosis on prior imaging-unknown cause. J Am Coll Radiol. 2024;21(6S):S144-S167. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2024.02.020

12. Ark JT, Mitchell CR, Marien TP, Herrell SD. Use of contrasted computerized tomography as a surrogate for nuclear medicine renogram to categorize renal function in the setting of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2016;97:238-244. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2016.04.068

13. Kim JK, Keefe DT, Rickard M, et al. Vascular hitch for paediatric pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction with crossing vessels: institutional analysis and systematic review with meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2022;129(6):679-687. doi:10.1111/bju.15342

14. Rassweiler JJ, Subotic S, Feist-Schwenk M, et al. Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: long-term experience with an algorithm for laser endopyelotomy and laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2007;177(3):1000-1005. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.049

15. Amon Sesmero JH, Delgado MC, de la Cruz Martin B, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: always dismembered? J Endourol. 2016;30(7):778-782. doi:10.1089/end.2015.0800

16. Szydelko T, Kasprzak J, Lewandowski J, Apoznanski W, Dembowski J. Dismembered laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty versus nondismembered laparoscopic Y-V pyeloplasty in the treatment of patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a prospective study. J Endourol. 2012;26(9):1165-1170. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0642

17. Gu S, Luo H. The optimal suture bite depth in laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparative study in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2024;34(9):871-875. doi:10.1089/lap.2023.0434

18. Kim JK, Lee MJ, Gao B, et al. Comparison of continuous and interrupted suture techniques in pyeloplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Surg Int. 2022;38(9):1209-1215. doi:10.1007/s00383-022-05173-4

19. Polok M, Chrzan R, Veenboer P, et al. Nondismembered pyeloplasty in a pediatric population: results of 34 open and laparoscopic procedures. Urology. 2011;78(4):891-894. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2011.04.039

20. Szydelko T, Kasprzak J, Apoznanski W, Zdrojowy R. Laparoscopic anterior Y-V pyeloplasty: a valuable treatment option in patients with small or intrarenal pelvis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010;20(7):627-630. doi:10.1089/lap.2010.0223

21. Tsivian A, Tsivian M, Sidi AA. The Y-V pyeloplasty revisited. Urology. 2010;75(1):200-202. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.08.062

22. Oesterwitz H, Bick C, Muller P, Hengst E, Seeger W. Management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction using a microsurgical technique. Eur Urol. 1987;13(6):412-414. doi:10.1159/000472836

23. Diamond DA, Nguyen HT. Dismembered V-flap pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2001;166(1):233-235.

24. Sun M, Yu C, Zhao J, et al. The efficacy of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Surg Int. 2023;39(1):265. doi:10.1007/s00383-023-05541-8

25. Light A, Karthikeyan S, Maruthan S, et al. Peri-operative outcomes and complications after laparoscopic vs robot-assisted dismembered pyeloplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2018;122(2):181-194. doi:10.1111/bju.14170

26. Touma Sawaya R, Zein M, Abdessater M. Short-term postoperative outcomes of open and minimally invasive pyeloplasty: evidence from a NSQIP database. World J Urol. 2026;44(1):183. doi:10.1007/s00345-026-06255-x

27. Whiting D, Whitehurst L, Tsang D, et al. Retroperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a 10 year experience in a single institution. J Endourol. 2022;36(5):615-619. doi:10.1089/end.2021.0551

28. Rague JT, Arora HC, Chu DI, et al. Safety and efficacy of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty compared to open repair in infants under 1 year of age. J Urol. 2022;207(2):432-440. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000002232

29. Liu X, Huang C, Guo Y, Yue Y, Hong J. Comparison of DJ stented, external stented and stent-less procedures for pediatric pyeloplasty: a network meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2019;68:126-133. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.07.001

30. Bilen CY, Bayazit Y, Gudeloglu A, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in adults: stented versus stentless. J Endourol. 2011;25(4):645-650. doi:10.1089/end.2010.0401

31. Bayne AP, Lee KA, Nelson ED, et al. The impact of surgical approach and urinary diversion on patient outcomes in pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2011;186(4 Suppl):1693-1698. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.103

32. Yiee JH, Baskin LS. Use of internal stent, external transanastomotic stent or no stent during pediatric pyeloplasty: a decision tree cost-effectiveness analysis. J Urol. 2011;185(2):673-680. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.118

33. Sethi AS, Regan SM, Sundaram CP. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without a ureteral stent. J Endourol. 2011;25(2):239-243. doi:10.1089/end.2010.0192

34. Chiarenza SF, Bleve C, Fasoli L, et al. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children by polar vessels. Is laparoscopic vascular hitching procedure a good solution? Single center experience on 35 consecutive patients. J Pediatr Surg. 2016;51(2):310-314. doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.10.005

35. Chiarenza SF, Bleve C, Caione P, et al. Minimally invasive treatment of pediatric extrinsic ureteropelvic junction obstruction by crossing polar vessels: is vascular hitching a definitive solution? Report of a multicenter survey. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017;27(9):965-971. doi:10.1089/lap.2016.0605

36. Dimarco DS, Gettman MT, McGee SM, et al. Long-term success of antegrade endopyelotomy compared with pyeloplasty at a single institution. J Endourol. 2006;20(10):707-712. doi:10.1089/end.2006.20.707

37. Ost MC, Kaye JD, Guttman MJ, Lee BR, Smith AD. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus antegrade endopyelotomy: comparison in 100 patients and a new algorithm for the minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2005;66(5 Suppl):47-51. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.115

38. Kim EH, Tanagho YS, Traxel EJ, et al. Endopyelotomy for pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a review of our 25-year experience. J Urol. 2012;188(4 Suppl):1628-1633. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.016

39. Yanke BV, Lallas CD, Pagnani C, McGinnis DE, Bagley DH. The minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a review of our experience during the last decade. J Urol. 2008;180(4):1397-1402. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.020

40. Moscardi PR, Barbosa JA, Andrade HS, et al. Reoperative laparoscopic ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair in children: safety and efficacy of the technique. J Urol. 2017;197(3 Pt 1):798-804. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.10.062

41. Jacobson DL, Shannon R, Johnson EK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair for failed pyeloplasty in children: an updated series. J Urol. 2019;201(5):1005-1011. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.10.021

42. Xiong S, Fan S, Huang Y, et al. Clinical efficacy and risk factors of minimally invasive surgery for failed pyeloplasty: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Int J Surg. 2025. doi:10.1097/JS9.0000000000004448

43. Lucas SM, Sundaram CP, Wolf JS, et al. Factors that impact the outcome of minimally invasive pyeloplasty: results of the Multi-Institutional Laparoscopic and Robotic Pyeloplasty Collaborative Group. J Urol. 2012;187(2):522-527. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.158

44. Moretto S, Gandi C, Bientinesi R, et al. Robotic versus open pyeloplasty: perioperative and functional outcomes. J Clin Med. 2023;12(7):2538. doi:10.3390/jcm12072538