Literature DB >> 15659924

Comparison of dismembered and nondismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient.

Pasquale Casale1, Richard W Grady, Byron D Joyner, Ilia S Zeltser, T Ernesto Figueroa, Michael E Mitchell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty is an acceptable option for ureteropelvic junction (UPS) obstruction in the pediatric population. We compared our results with dismembered and nondismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasty. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of 26 children between the ages of 8 months and 15 years (mean age 5 years) underwent transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for an obstruction not caused by a crossing vessel. Nineteen had an Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty (AH), while the remaining seven had a nondismembered pyeloplasty in a Heineke-Mikulicz fashion (HM). The outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay, and resolution of obstruction by ultrasonography and diuretic radionuclide imaging.
RESULTS: The mean operative time was 3.1 hours and 2.5 hours for AH and HM, respectively. No difference in hospital stay was noted, with a mean of 3 days. The stent was removed 6 weeks later. Four of the seven patients having nondismembered procedures presented with acute flank pain within 3 days of stent removal. The AH pyeloplasty produced a 94% rate of resolution of UPJ obstruction, while the HM patients did poorly, with a success rate of only 43% (P = 0.002; Fisher's exact test).
CONCLUSIONS: We believe that for UPJ obstructions in children not involving a crossing vessel, laparoscopic dismembered (AH) pyeloplasty may be considered a safe alternative.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15659924     DOI: 10.1089/end.2004.18.875

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


  15 in total

1.  Postoperative outcome following pyeloplasty in children using miniflank incision and transanastomotic stent: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Devendra K Gupta; Shilpa Sharma
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 1.827

Review 2.  Laparoscopy or retroperitoneoscopy: which is the best approach in pediatric urology?

Authors:  Dimitrios Antoniou; Christos Karetsos
Journal:  Transl Pediatr       Date:  2016-10

Review 3.  Robotic surgery in pediatric urology.

Authors:  Jason P Van Batavia; Pasquale Casale
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  Benefits of Retroperitoneoscopic Surgery in Pediatric Urology.

Authors:  Mariapina Cerulo; M Escolino; F Turrà; A Roberti; A Farina; C Esposito
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-04-03       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Dismembered and non-dismembered retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children.

Authors:  Svetozar Subotic; Hagen Weiss; Stephen Wyler; Cyrill A Rentsch; Jens Rassweiler; Alexander Bachmann; Dogu Teber
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Study comparing the applicability of dorsal lumbotomy in older children.

Authors:  Jonathan Cloutier; Nadim Haidar; Marie-Pier Rompre-Deschenes; Maryse Grimard; Stéphane Bolduc
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 7.  [The position of laparoscopic surgery in pediatric urology].

Authors:  D Teber; S Subotic; M Schulze; C Stock; S Eskicorapci; J Rassweiler
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 0.639

8.  Current trends in pediatric minimally invasive urologic surgery.

Authors:  Dennis J Lee; Philip H Kim; Chester J Koh
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2010-02-18

9.  [Experience with laparoscopic pyeloplasty for treating ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Technique and results].

Authors:  S Subotic; M Schulze; A Gözen; J Rassweiler; D Teber
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 10.  Robotic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population.

Authors:  Pasquale Casale
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.092

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.