PURPOSE: We present our experience with laparoscopic pyeloplasty plus pyelolithotomy in patients in whom stones were not the cause of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A transperitoneal approach was used for laparoscopic pyeloplasty and pyelolithotomy in 19 patients (20 renal units). Before ureteropelvic junction repair stones were extracted through a small pyelotomy that was eventually incorporated into the final pyeloplasty incision. Stones in the renal pelvis were removed with rigid graspers under direct laparoscopic vision. A flexible cystoscope introduced through a port was used to extract stones in the calices. The renal pelvis was reconstructed based on the anatomy of the ureteropelvic junction. RESULTS: A median of 1 stone (range 1 to 28) was recovered. In 11, 8 and 1 patients the Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty, Y-V plasty and the Heinecke Mickulicz procedure were performed, respectively. At 3 months 2 patients had residual calculi for a procedural stone-free rate of 90%. There was no evidence of obstruction in 18 of the 20 cases (90%), as confirmed by negative diuretic scan or radiological improvement of hydronephrosis. At a mean followup of 12 months (range 3 to 57) 2 additional patients had recurrent stones for an overall long-term stone-free rate of 80% (16 of 20). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy is feasible when combined with pyeloplasty. Our results are comparable to those of stone removal during open pyeloplasty or percutaneous endopyelotomy. The advantages of open surgery appear to be maintained in this minimally invasive approach.
PURPOSE: We present our experience with laparoscopic pyeloplasty plus pyelolithotomy in patients in whom stones were not the cause of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A transperitoneal approach was used for laparoscopic pyeloplasty and pyelolithotomy in 19 patients (20 renal units). Before ureteropelvic junction repair stones were extracted through a small pyelotomy that was eventually incorporated into the final pyeloplasty incision. Stones in the renal pelvis were removed with rigid graspers under direct laparoscopic vision. A flexible cystoscope introduced through a port was used to extract stones in the calices. The renal pelvis was reconstructed based on the anatomy of the ureteropelvic junction. RESULTS: A median of 1 stone (range 1 to 28) was recovered. In 11, 8 and 1 patients the Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty, Y-V plasty and the Heinecke Mickulicz procedure were performed, respectively. At 3 months 2 patients had residual calculi for a procedural stone-free rate of 90%. There was no evidence of obstruction in 18 of the 20 cases (90%), as confirmed by negative diuretic scan or radiological improvement of hydronephrosis. At a mean followup of 12 months (range 3 to 57) 2 additional patients had recurrent stones for an overall long-term stone-free rate of 80% (16 of 20). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy is feasible when combined with pyeloplasty. Our results are comparable to those of stone removal during open pyeloplasty or percutaneous endopyelotomy. The advantages of open surgery appear to be maintained in this minimally invasive approach.
Authors: Ketan K Badani; Ashok K Hemal; Michael Fumo; Sanjeev Kaul; Alok Shrivastava; Arumuga Kumar Rajendram; Noor Ashani Yusoff; Murali Sundram; Susan Woo; James O Peabody; Sahabudin Raja Mohamed; Mani Menon Journal: World J Urol Date: 2006-05-16 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Sigrid Wagner; Francesco Greco; Antonino Inferrera; M Raschid Hoda; Felix Kawan; Amir Hamza; Paolo Fornara Journal: World J Urol Date: 2009-10-22 Impact factor: 4.226