Literature DB >> 28534190

A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study.

Wael Y Khoder1, Raphaela Waidelich2, Abdel Majeed Al Ghamdi2, Therese Schulz2, Armin Becker2, Christian G Stief2.   

Abstract

Literature data comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic approaches are still lacking, probably due to difficulties with the retroperitoneoscopic approach. The objective is to compare the results of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty using transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in a prospective randomised single surgeon study. 80 consecutive patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were prospectively randomised between transperitoneal (40 patients, group 1) and retroperitoneal (40 patients, group 2) robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. All patients underwent preoperative clinical evaluation, retrograde urography, and diuretic isotope renography. All operations were performed by a single-experienced surgeon. Patients were followed up by postoperative clinical examination, sonography, and diuretic renography at 3-6 months. Both approaches were compared with regard to patients' demographic data, radiological and operative findings, and functional outcomes, and correlations were statistically evaluated. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and renal scintigraphy data were comparable for both groups. No open/laparoscopic conversions were necessary. Mean operative times (skin to skin) were 125 (70-305) and 118 (60-345) min for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.726). Only minor complications were found in three and four patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pyeloplasty technique included a renal pelvis flap in three patients from either group,; otherwise, the Anderson-Hynes technique was employed. None of perioperative patient and operative parameters, including approach, had a significant impact on operative time or functional outcomes. Median follow-up was 3 months for both groups. Success was recorded in 39 and 38 patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively, while equivocal results were obtained in 3 cases. Postoperative 3 month renal scintigraphy showed no significant GFR or split renal function differences between the groups. There was no detectable postoperative deterioration in ipsilateral split renal function or hydronephrosis grade. Robotic-assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty exhibits low morbidity and satisfactory operative and functional outcomes comparable to the usually preferred laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has high success rates regardless of the used approach. Accordingly, every surgeon should use the approach which he/she feels most comfortable with.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopy; Pyeloplasty; Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty; Ureteropelvic junction obstruction

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28534190     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  22 in total

1.  Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system.

Authors:  Matthew T Gettman; Richard Neururer; Georg Bartsch; Reinhard Peschel
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 2.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first decade.

Authors:  Adebanji B Adeyoju; David Hrouda; Inderbir S Gill
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience.

Authors:  Mohamed Etafy; Donald Pick; Shary Said; Thomas Hsueh; David Kerbl; Phillip Mucksavage; Michael Louie; Elspeth McDougall; Ralph Clayman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-04-17       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO): solving the technical difficulties.

Authors:  A Bachmann; R Ruszat; T Forster; D Eberli; M Zimmermann; A Müller; T C Gasser; T Sulser; S Wyler
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-01-17       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Plastic operation for hydronephrosis.

Authors:  J C ANDERSON; W HYNES
Journal:  Proc R Soc Med       Date:  1951-01

6.  Factors that impact the outcome of minimally invasive pyeloplasty: results of the Multi-institutional Laparoscopic and Robotic Pyeloplasty Collaborative Group.

Authors:  Steven M Lucas; Chandru P Sundaram; J Stuart Wolf; Raymond J Leveillee; Vincent G Bird; Mohamed Aziz; Stephen E Pautler; Patrick Luke; Peter Erdeljan; D Duane Baldwin; Kamyar Ebrahimi; Robert B Nadler; David Rebuck; Raju Thomas; Benjamin R Lee; Ugur Boylu; Robert S Figenshau; Ravi Munver; Timothy D Averch; Bishoy Gayed; Arieh L Shalhav; Mohan S Gundeti; Erik P Castle; J Kyle Anderson; Branden G Duffey; Jaime Landman; Zhamshid Okhunov; Carson Wong; Kurt H Strom
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience.

Authors:  Ananthakrishnan Sivaraman; Raymond J Leveillee; Manoj B Patel; Sanket Chauhan; Jorge E Bracho; Charles R Moore; Rafael F Coelho; Kenneth J Palmer; Oscar Schatloff; Vincent G Bird; Ravi Munver; Vipul R Patel
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction.

Authors:  H Christoph Klingler; Mesut Remzi; Guenter Janetschek; Christian Kratzik; Michael J Marberger
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience.

Authors:  Patrick W Mufarrij; Michael Woods; Ojas D Shah; Michael A Palese; Aaron D Berger; Raju Thomas; Michael D Stifelman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a prospective randomized comparison between the transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneoscopy.

Authors:  Ahmed M Shoma; Ahmed R El Nahas; Mahmoud A Bazeed
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-09-17       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  4 in total

1.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty with the use of the Contour™ stent: description of the technique and analysis of outcomes after the first 30 cases.

Authors:  Franco Gaboardi; Guglielmo Mantica; Salvatore Smelzo; Giovannalberto Pini; Davide De Marchi; Giovanni Passaretti; Giuseppe Saitta; Lorenzo Rigatti; Nazareno Suardi
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2019-01-04

2.  A modification with threading cannula needle-assisted 4-point suspension fixation for retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a cohort study in single center.

Authors:  Ke Li; Cheng Hu; Wentao Huang; Jie Si-Tu; Li Lu; Yunhua Mao; Huimin Zhang; Jianguang Qiu; Dejuan Wang
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 2.370

3.  Evaluation of the clinical value of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in infants: A single-center experience involving 22 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Shilin Zhang; Jierong Li; Chunjing Li; Xumin Xie; Fengsheng Ling; Yongjie Liang; Guoqing Liu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 1.889

4.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: A retrospective case series review.

Authors:  Sunil Kumar; Deepak Prakash Bhirud; Ankur Mittal; Shiv Charan Navriya; Satish Kumar Ranjan; Kim Jacob Mammen
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2021 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 1.407

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.