Literature DB >> 30231235

Head-to-Head Comparison of Modified Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty and Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in China.

Peng Hong1, Guangpu Ding1, Dongdong Zhu1, Kunlin Yang1, Jinhong Pan2, Xuesong Li1, Zhipeng Chen2, Lei Zhang1, Qi Tang1, Han Hao1, Zhansong Zhou2, Liqun Zhou1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of modified laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) and robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RLP) for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in China patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent modified LP and RLP using a transperitoneal laparoscopic approach at 2 different medical institutions between October 2009 and November 2017.
RESULTS: Seventy-six patients underwent modified LP and 140 patients underwent RLP. No open conversion occurred. The mean operative time of RLP was shorter than that of modified LP (p = 0.042). For UPJO concomitant with renal calculi, there was no difference in operative time between 2 groups (p = 0.656). With RLP, the operative time for UPJO concomitant with horseshoe was shorter (p = 0.011). In terms of complication rate, there was no significant difference between 2 groups (p = 0.596). The postoperative hospital stay for modified LP was shorter than that for RLP (p < 0.05). The mean follow-up time for modified LP and RLP was 31.79 months and 10.85 months respectively (p < 0.05). The success rate was 96.05 and 97.86% for modified LP and RLP, respectively (p = 0.736).
CONCLUSIONS: Modified LP and RLP are safe and efficient treatment for UPJO with similar success rates.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopy; Pyeloplasty; Robotic surgery; Ureteropelvic junction obstruction

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30231235     DOI: 10.1159/000492337

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Int        ISSN: 0042-1138            Impact factor:   2.089


  5 in total

Review 1.  [Review of upper urinary modified minimal invasive surgical technology].

Authors:  G P Ding; S D Cheng; D Fang; K L Yang; X S Li; H X Zhou; Q Zhang; X J Ye; L Q Zhou
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2019-08-18

2.  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

Review 3.  Comparison Between Robotic and Laparoscopic or Open Anastomoses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ioannis D Kostakis; Harkiran Sran; Raphael Uwechue; Pankaj Chandak; Jonathon Olsburgh; Nizam Mamode; Ioannis Loukopoulos; Nicos Kessaris
Journal:  Robot Surg       Date:  2019-12-23

4.  [A retrospective comparison of robotic assisted and conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in two centres].

Authors:  H Griessner; L Oberhammer; M Pallauf; D Oswald; T Kunit; D Colleselli; A Merseburger; M Kramer; L Lusuardi; M Mitterberger
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2020-12-08       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging for laparoscopic complex upper urinary tract reconstructions: a comparative study.

Authors:  Weijie Zhu; Shengwei Xiong; Yucai Wu; Dengxiang Zhang; Chen Huang; Han Hao; Lei Zhang; Kunlin Yang; Peng Zhang; Hongjian Zhu; Xuesong Li; Liqun Zhou
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.