Literature DB >> 18484890

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: technical considerations and outcomes.

Brent V Yanke1, Costas D Lallas, Christopher Pagnani, Demetrius H Bagley.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Since first being described in 1993, laparoscopic pyeloplasty has proven to be less morbid but equally as effective as open pyeloplasty. The technical complexity of the procedure, however, has made it difficult for many surgeons to adopt. The da Vinci robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RP) was introduced to shorten the learning curve. We present our institutional experience with RP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 2005 and September 2006, 29 RPs were performed and prospectively recorded in a database. The patient population consisted of 18 (62%) women and 11 (38%) men with a mean age of 41.2 years (range 17-82 years). Outcomes were retrospectively reviewed. Procedures were performed transperitoneally in a modified flank position using a 4-port template.
RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 11 months (range 6-17 months). Eighteen (62%) patients had ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction on the right, while 11 (38%) patients had obstruction on the left. Nine (31%) patients presented for secondary repair, all because of failed endopyelotomy. Mean operative time was 196 minutes (range 120-420 min), estimated blood loss was 39 mL (range 25-250 mL), and length of hospital stay was 2.2 days. Crossing vessels were encountered in 20 (69%) patients. Procedures in two patients, encountered early in our series, required open conversion. Both were secondary repairs after failed Acucise endopyelotomy. There were two readmissions, one for flank pain and another for pyelonephritis. There were no recurrences based on both subjective and radiologic measures.
CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that RP is a technically feasible management option for UPJ obstruction with success rates comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18484890     DOI: 10.1089/end.2008.0081

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


  6 in total

1.  [Pyeloplasty - pro robotic-assisted].

Authors:  Z Akçetin; S Siemer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: outcomes reported by a centre with no previous laparoscopic experience.

Authors:  Claudio Giberti; Fabrizio Gallo; Maurizio Schenone; Pierluigi Cortese
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2009-05-29

3.  The minimally invasive management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in horseshoe kidneys.

Authors:  Costas D Lallas; Raymond W Pak; Christopher Pagnani; Scott G Hubosky; Brent V Yanke; Frank X Keeley; Demetrius H Bagley
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-03-05       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  Ureteropelvic obstruction and renal stones: etiology and treatment.

Authors:  Andreas Skolarikos; Andreas Dellis; Thomas Knoll
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-11-02       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Authors:  Cem Başataç; Uğur Boylu; Fikret Fatih Önol; Eyüp Gümüş
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2014-03

6.  Defining the pros and cons of open, conventional laparoscopy, and robot-assisted pyeloplasty in a developing nation.

Authors:  Mrinal Pahwa; Archna R Pahwa; Mohit Girotra; Rtika Ryfka Abrahm; Sachin Kathuria; Ajay Sharma
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2014-02-02
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.