Literature DB >> 12475652

Laparoscopic treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Tibrio M Siqueira1, Andrei Nadu, Ramsay L Kuo, Ryan F Paterson, James E Lingeman, Arieh L Shalhav.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess retrospectively the subjective and objective outcomes achieved after laparoscopic treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction at our institutions.
METHODS: Between August 1999 and July 2001, 19 patients (11 women and 8 men), with a mean age of 31.2 years (range 17 to 67), underwent laparoscopic treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Of these, 17 patients were eligible for postoperative analysis. Nine of these patients had a history of prior surgical intervention on the affected side. The patients were subjectively assessed by an analog pain scale performed before and at least 6 months after surgery. Preoperatively, patients had a diuretic renal scan to confirm the presence of obstruction. Helical computed tomography was also performed preoperatively to assess for the presence of crossing vessels. The renal scan was repeated at least 12 weeks after surgery to document the relief of obstruction objectively.
RESULTS: Helical computed tomography correctly predicted the presence of crossing vessels in 12 patients (63%). The Anderson-Hynes and Fenger pyeloplasty techniques were performed in 16 and 2 patients, respectively. In 1 patient, a small crossing vein over the ureteropelvic junction was identified and divided without complications. The average operative time was 240 minutes (range 128 to 470). The blood loss was minimal, and no open conversions were required. The mean hospital stay was 2.9 days (range 2 to 7). Two postoperative complications occurred (11.7%). The average subjective follow-up was 14.4 months (range 6 to 27), and the average objective follow-up was 7.8 months (range 3 to 12). Of 17 assessable patients, 16 (94%) had subjective and objective success (postoperative improvement in analog pain score and half-life of radiotracer washout). The average split renal function improved from 34.1% to 38.5% (P <0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our data, laparoscopic pyeloplasty has a similar success rate compared with the traditional open approach and better results than other minimally invasive techniques. Longer follow-up and further experience are needed to validate these data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12475652     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02072-1

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


  14 in total

Review 1.  Comparison of surgical approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction: endopyeloplasty versus endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Robert J Stein; Inderbir S Gill; Mihir M Desai
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the standard of care for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Authors:  Anil Kapoor; Christopher B Allard
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Long-term follow-up results of laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Ill Young Seo; Tae Hoon Oh; Jae Whan Lee
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2014-10-10

6.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) in children with horseshoe kidneys: results of a multicentric study.

Authors:  Ciro Esposito; Lorenzo Masieri; Thomas Blanc; Gianantonio Manzoni; Selcuk Silay; Maria Escolino
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Experience with laparoscopy-assisted retroperitoneal pyeloplasty in children.

Authors:  Mohan K Abraham; Abdul Rasheed A Nasir; S Bindu; P Ramakrishnan; Prashant M Kedari; Gopidas R Unnithan; Kalyan Ravi Prasad Damisetti
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2009-06-11       Impact factor: 1.827

8.  Trends in the treatment of adults with ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Authors:  Bruce L Jacobs; Samuel R Kaufman; Hal Morgenstern; Brent K Hollenbeck; J Stuart Wolf; John M Hollingsworth
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 9.  Taking the side of transperitoneal access for surgery in upper urinary tract.

Authors:  Mohamad E Allaf; Sam B Bhayani; Louis R Kavoussi
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.862

10.  Technical modifications of double-J stenting for retroperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children under 5 years old.

Authors:  Zhi Chen; Xiang Chen; Yan-Cheng Luo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.