The Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction

Objective To examine the effectiveness of the 3 primary treatments for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (ie, open pyeloplasty, minimally invasive pyeloplasty, and endopyelotomy) as assessed by failure rates. Materials and Methods Using MarketScan data, we identified adults (ages 18-64 years) who underwent treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction between 2002 and 2010. Our primary outcome was failure (ie, need for a secondary procedure). We fit a Cox proportional hazards model to examine the effects of different patient, regional, and provider characteristics on treatment failure. We then implemented a survival analysis framework to examine the failure-free probability for each treatment. Results We identified 1125 minimally invasive pyeloplasties, 775 open pyeloplasties, and 1315 endopyelotomies with failure rates of 7%, 9%, and 15%, respectively. Compared with endopyelotomy, minimally invasive pyeloplasty was associated with a lower risk of treatment failure (adjusted hazards ratio [aHR] 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.69). Minimally invasive and open pyeloplasties had similar failure rates. Compared with open pyeloplasty, endopyelotomy was associated with a higher risk of treatment failure (aHR 1.78; 95% CI, 1.33-2.37). The average length of stay was 2.7 days for minimally invasive pyeloplasty and 4.2 days for open pyeloplasty ( P Conclusion Endopyelotomy has the highest failure rate, yet it remains a common treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Future research should examine to what extent patients and physicians are driving the use of endopyelotomy.