Literature DB >> 11248616

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty with a minimal incision: comparison of two surgical approaches.

M Soulié1, M Thoulouzan, P Seguin, P Mouly, N Vazzoler, F Pontonnier, P Plante.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the complications, hospital stay, and functional results of retroperitoneal laparoscopic (RL) pyeloplasty versus open pyeloplasty (OP) with a minimal subcostal incision.
METHODS: From October 1997 to January 2000, 53 consecutive nonrandomized patients underwent 26 RL pyeloplasties, of which 1 was bilateral (group 1), and 28 OP (group 2). The decision between the two techniques depended on the patient's anesthetic ability to tolerate RL, previous ureteropelvic junction surgery, associated renal pathologic findings, and the surgeon's laparoscopic experience. Subjective outcomes as to postoperative pain and convalescence and objective findings on intravenous urography were assessed at 3 months postoperatively in both groups.
RESULTS: The mean operating time (165 versus 145 minutes) and mean blood loss (92 versus 84 mL) were similar in both groups. No intraoperative complications occurred in either group; in group 1, 1 patient required open conversion. Postoperative complications occurred in 11.5% of group 1 and 14.3% of group 2. The mean hospital stay was 4.5 days for group 1 and 5.5 days for group 2. At 3 months, 23 patients (92%) in group 1 and 25 (89.2%) in group 2 were pain-free or improved. Intravenous urography showed a patent ureteropelvic junction in all cases and improvement of hydronephrosis in 88.5% of group 1 and 89.3% of group 2.
CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of complications, hospital stay, and functional results were equivalent for RL pyeloplasty and OP with a minimal incision, but the return to painless activity was more rapid with laparoscopy in younger patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11248616     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)01065-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  14 in total

1.  [Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in adults: Excellent long-term results of primary pyeloplasty].

Authors:  M Traumann; L A Kluth; M Schmid; C Meyer; B Schwaiger; C Rosenbaum; P Schriefer; M Fisch; R Dahlem; D Seiler; S Ahyai; A Haese; F K-H Chun
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Laparoscopic management of hydronephrosis in children.

Authors:  Alaa El-Ghoneimi
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2004-12-17       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Comparison of laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in 100 patients with pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction.

Authors:  R C Calvert; M M Morsy; B Zelhof; M Rhodes; N A Burgess
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  The gold standard for the treatment of uncomplicated adult ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Authors:  Patrick Luke
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: comparison of two surgical approaches- a single centre experience of three years.

Authors:  Punit Bansal; Aman Gupta; Ritesh Mongha; Srinivas Narayan; Ranjit K Das; Malay Bera; Sudip C Chakraborty; Anup K Kundu
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2011-04-26       Impact factor: 0.656

6.  The Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction.

Authors:  Bruce L Jacobs; Julie C Lai; Rachana Seelam; Janet M Hanley; J Stuart Wolf; Brent K Hollenbeck; John M Hollingsworth; Andrew W Dick; Claude M Setodji; Christopher S Saigal
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2017-09-21       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients: the SGPGI experience.

Authors:  Ruchir Maheshwari; M S Ansari; Anil Mandhani; Aneesh Srivastava; Rakesh Kapoor
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2010 Jan-Mar

Review 8.  Management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults.

Authors:  Fahd Khan; Kamran Ahmed; Nikiesha Lee; Ben Challacombe; Mohammed S Khan; Prokar Dasgupta
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2014-10-07       Impact factor: 14.432

9.  Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: Comparison of two surgical approaches -- a single centre experience of three years.

Authors:  Punit Bansal; Aman Gupta; Ritesh Mongha; Srinivas Narayan; A K Kundu; S C Chakraborty; R K Das; M K Bera
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.407

10.  Defining the pros and cons of open, conventional laparoscopy, and robot-assisted pyeloplasty in a developing nation.

Authors:  Mrinal Pahwa; Archna R Pahwa; Mohit Girotra; Rtika Ryfka Abrahm; Sachin Kathuria; Ajay Sharma
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2014-02-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.