Literature DB >> 16890693

Laparoscopy versus dorsal lumbotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair.

Scott Troxel1, Sakti Das, Eric Helfer, Mike Nugyen.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty offers similar success rates compared to open surgery. However, the advanced laparoscopic skills required may limit its widespread application. In select patients the dorsal lumbotomy approach can provide similar postoperative advantages to minimally invasive surgery. We analyze the perioperative management of laparoscopy vs dorsal lumbotomy for the repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective review 13 patients who underwent dorsal lumbotomy pyeloplasty were compared to 19 patients who underwent laparoscopic pyeloplasty between 1998 and 2003. Preoperative confirmation of obstruction was obtained through excretory urogram or renal Lasix scan. All 13 patients undergoing dorsal lumbotomy had a dismembered pyeloplasty. Of the 19 laparoscopic cases 16 had a dismembered pyeloplasty and 3 had a Fenger procedure. Average followup was 12 months for the open group and 13.3 months for the laparoscopic group. Postoperative results were evaluated with excretory urogram or renal Lasix scan as well as subjective outcomes by the patients.
RESULTS: Operative time was slightly longer for the laparoscopy group at 231 minutes vs 200 minutes. Estimated blood loss and postoperative morphine requirements were also similar. Hospital stay was 3.3 days for the dorsal lumbotomy group compared to 2.4 for the laparoscopy group. The overall success rate for the laparoscopic group was 94.7% compared to 100% for the dorsal lumbotomy group. Each group had 1 complication, paresthesia of anterior/medial thigh that resolved by 6 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results show that a dismembered dorsal lumbotomy pyeloplasty is comparable to laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty with regard to intraoperative and postoperative hospital course.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16890693     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.072

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  7 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Is it always necessary to treat a ureteropelvic junction syndrome?

Authors:  Paul J Van Cangh
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: technique and results in 105 patients.

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

4.  Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Dismembered Pyeloplasty with or without Ureteral Stenting in Children with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction.

Authors:  June Kim; Sungchan Park; Hyunho Hwang; Jong Won Kim; Sang Hyeon Cheon; Seonghun Park; Kun Suk Kim
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2012-08-16

5.  Pyeloplasty in children: perioperative results and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery.

Authors:  Martin Salö; Tania Sjöberg Altemani; Magnus Anderberg
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 1.827

6.  Minimally invasive open dismembered pyeloplasty technique: Miniature incision, muscle-splitting dissection, and nopelvis reduction in children.

Authors:  Farzaneh Sharifiaghdas; Mahboubeh Mirzaei; Azar Daneshpajooh; Shahin Abbaszadeh
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2018-08-11

7.  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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.