OBJECTIVE: To compare the different times into which the convention and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty can be divided. To compare the rate of complications between both procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of the patients diagnosed of pyeloureteral junction stenosis and treated with convention and robotic laparoscopic pyeloplasty with more than one year of follow-up. All of the interventions were recorded and visualized. The different times in which the pyeloplasty can be divided were measured. All of the peri- and post-operative complications that occurred by the patients were collected. The non-parametric tests of Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Mann-Whitney U-Test for independent samples were applied using a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients were validated. Thirty three were treated with convention laparoscopy and 17 with robotic laparoscopy. The suture time, total intervention time and time of hospital stay were lower with a statistically significant difference in the robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. The robotic pyeloplasty had a lower percentage of complications (76.5% vs 48.5%). The most frequent complications were urinary infections, in relationship to the double J. Two restenoses occurred in the conventional laparoscopy and one in the robotic-assisted. Success rate was 93.9% for the conventional laparoscopy and 94.1% for the robotic-assisted one. CONCLUSIONS: Although the success rate is similar in both procedures, the robotic pyeloplasty is a very fast procedure and has lower rates of complications than the conventional laparoscopy.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the different times into which the convention and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty can be divided. To compare the rate of complications between both procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of the patients diagnosed of pyeloureteral junction stenosis and treated with convention and robotic laparoscopic pyeloplasty with more than one year of follow-up. All of the interventions were recorded and visualized. The different times in which the pyeloplasty can be divided were measured. All of the peri- and post-operative complications that occurred by the patients were collected. The non-parametric tests of Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Mann-Whitney U-Test for independent samples were applied using a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients were validated. Thirty three were treated with convention laparoscopy and 17 with robotic laparoscopy. The suture time, total intervention time and time of hospital stay were lower with a statistically significant difference in the robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. The robotic pyeloplasty had a lower percentage of complications (76.5% vs 48.5%). The most frequent complications were urinary infections, in relationship to the double J. Two restenoses occurred in the conventional laparoscopy and one in the robotic-assisted. Success rate was 93.9% for the conventional laparoscopy and 94.1% for the robotic-assisted one. CONCLUSIONS: Although the success rate is similar in both procedures, the robotic pyeloplasty is a very fast procedure and has lower rates of complications than the conventional laparoscopy.
Authors: Juan Gómez Rivas; Sergio Alonso Y Gregorio; María A Portilla Eastmond; Angel Tabernero Gómez; Jesús Cisneros Ledo; Luis Hidalgo Togores; Jesús Javier de la Peña Barthel Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2013-11-18
Authors: Annemarie Uhlig; Johannes Uhlig; Lutz Trojan; Marc Hinterthaner; Alexander von Hammerstein-Equord; Arne Strauss Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 2.264