Literature DB >> 12803987

Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty.

D Duane Baldwin1, Jennifer A Dunbar, Nancy Wells, Elspeth M McDougall.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare Acucise endopyelotomy (Applied Medical, Irvine, California), laparoscopic pyeloplasty, and open pyeloplasty in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all adult patients undergoing surgical correction of UPJ obstruction between December 1999 and August 2001 at Vanderbilt University Medical Center was performed. Patients undergoing UPJ correction with Acucise endopyelotomy (N = 9), laparoscopic pyeloplasty (N = 16), and open pyeloplasty (N = 7) were compared in regard to demographic information, operative data, recovery parameters, cost data, and outcome (as determined by diuretic renography, the Whitaker test, or both).
RESULTS: Success rates of 56%, 94%, and 86% were obtained for Acucise endopyelotomy, laparoscopic pyeloplasty, and open pyeloplasty, respectively. There were no differences between the Acucise endopyelotomy and laparoscopic pyeloplasty groups in age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, length of follow-up, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital stay, total hospital cost, or analgesic requirement. The Acucise patients demonstrated shorter operating times (1.7 v 3.3 hours; P < 0.001) and time to oral intake (7.9 v 16 hours; P = 0.008) than the laparoscopic pyeloplasty group. When the laparoscopic pyeloplasty patients were compared with the open pyeloplasty patients, there was no difference in operative time, EBL, time to oral intake, or total hospital costs. The laparoscopically treated patients demonstrated significantly lower analgesic requirements (27.2 v 124.2 mg of morphine sulfate equivalent; P = 0.02) and shorter hospital stays (1.4 v 3.0 days; P = 0.03) than the open surgery patients. The Acucise patients demonstrated shorter operative time (1.7 v 3.4 hours; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (1.3 v 3.0 days; P = 0.02), and lower analgesic requirement (22.4 v 124.2 mg of morphine sulfate equivalent; P = 0.02) than the open surgery patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty achieves a success rate equal to that of open pyeloplasty while providing a recovery similar to that obtained with Acucise endopyelotomy and is gaining popularity as the treatment of choice for UPJ obstruction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12803987     DOI: 10.1089/089277903321618716

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  30 in total

1.  Prospective cost analysis of laparoscopic vs. open pyeloplasty in children: Single centre contemporary evaluation comparing two procedures over a 1-year period.

Authors:  Katherine Moore; Armando J Lorenzo; Suzanne Turner; Darius J Bägli; Joao L Pippi Salle; Walid A Farhat
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 2.  Minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  B Jaffray
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.791

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Pathophysiology and treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Authors:  Brent Williams; Basir Tareen; Martin I Resnick
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Richard E Link; Sam B Bhayani; Louis R Kavoussi
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Endopyelotomy still has an important role in the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Authors:  Dinesh Samarasekera; Ben H Chew
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  Complex pelvic-ureteric junction obstruction (PUJO): successful management with robotic assistance.

Authors:  Tushar Aditya Narain; Ravimohan S Mavuduru; Aditya P Sharma; Girdhar S Bora; Sudheer K Devana; Shrawan K Singh; Arup K Mandal
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-06-06

8.  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

9.  Cost Analysis of Treatments for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction.

Authors:  Bruce L Jacobs; Rachana Seelam; Julie C Lai; Janet M Hanley; J Stuart Wolf; Brent K Hollenbeck; John M Hollingsworth; Andrew W Dick; Claude M Setodji; Christopher S Saigal
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 2.942

10.  Renal calculi with retrocaval ureter: is percutaneous nephrolithotomy sufficient?

Authors:  Jai Prakash; Anubhav Raj; Satyanarayan Sankhwar; Vishwajeet Singh
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2013-03-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.