Literature DB >> 7502417

Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction.

J D Brooks1, L R Kavoussi, G M Preminger, W W Schuessler, R G Moore.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare open pyeloplasty with three minimally invasive modalities: antegrade endopyelotomy, Acucise endopyelotomy (Applied Medical, Laguna Hills, Calif), and laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
METHODS: Forty-five adult patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction were managed by one of the above four techniques. Success rates, analgesic use, length of hospital stay, recovery time, and complications were compared between each of the four groups.
RESULTS: Successful relief of obstruction was achieved in 100% of patients undergoing open and laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty, 78% undergoing Acucise endopyelotomy, and 77% undergoing antegrade percutaneous endopyelotomy. Acucise endopyelotomy results in shorter convalescence (1 week) than antegrade endopyelotomy (4.7 weeks), laparoscopic pyeloplasty (2.3 weeks) or open pyeloplasty (10.3 weeks). Complication rates appear to be similar among all groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our limited data imply that Acucise endopyelotomy offers low morbidity with success rates comparable to antegrade pyeloplasty, whereas laparoscopic pyeloplasty is as effective as open pyeloplasty with diminished morbidity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7502417     DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80345-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  40 in total

Review 1.  Antegrade percutaneous endopyelotomy.

Authors:  Raymond Ko; Mordechai Duvdevani; John D Denstedt
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Lasers in percutaneous renal procedures.

Authors:  Nadya M Cinman; Sero Andonian; Arthur D Smith
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2009-06-02       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Da Vinci robot assisted Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty: technique and 1 year follow-up.

Authors:  Wassilios Bentas; Marc Wolfram; Ronald Bräutigam; Michael Probst; Wolf-Dietrich Beecken; Dietger Jonas; Jochen Binder
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2003-07-09       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty, initial experience in the management of UPJO.

Authors:  V J Gnanapragasam; T G Armitage
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 1.891

5.  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

6.  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 7.  Robotic pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Jacques Hubert
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.092

8.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients: the SGPGI experience.

Authors:  Ruchir Maheshwari; M S Ansari; Anil Mandhani; Aneesh Srivastava; Rakesh Kapoor
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2010 Jan-Mar

9.  Minimally invasive surgical options for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A significant step in the right direction.

Authors:  Stephanie J Symons; Victor Palit; Chandra Shekhar Biyani; Jon J Cartledge; Anthony J Browning; Adrian D Joyce
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2009-01

10.  Comparison of endopyelotomy and laparoscopic pyeloplasty for poorly functioning kidneys with ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Authors:  Pratipal Singh; Rakesh Kapoor; Amit Suri; Kamal Jeet Singh; Anil Mandhani; Deepak Dubey; Aneesh Srivastava; Anant Kumar
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2007-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.