Laparoscopic In Situ Dismembered Pyeloplasty Can Facilitate Laparoscopic Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction Repair: A Prospective Cohort Trial

被引:5
|
作者
Aminsharifi, Alireza [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Molaie, Afshin [1 ]
Monsef, Alireza [1 ]
机构
[1] Shiraz Univ Med Sci, Dept Urol, Shiraz, Iran
[2] Shiraz Univ Med Sci, Laparoscopy Res Ctr, Shiraz, Iran
[3] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Div Urol Surg, Erwin St, Durham, NC 27710 USA
关键词
laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty; modifications; ureteropelvic junction obstruction; laparoscopy;
D O I
10.1089/end.2017.0538
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose: To describe the technique of laparoscopic in situ dismembered pyeloplasty as a modified technique during which the alignment of ureter and renal pelvis remains intact during ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) anastomosis. We also assessed intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of this modification in comparison to standard laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Patients and Methods: Patients with significant primary UPJ obstruction without any history of abdominal surgery, high ureter insertion, or renal anomalies were considered. The patients were consecutively enrolled one after another into one of two study groups: classic laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty (Group I) or laparoscopic in situ dismembered pyeloplasty (Group II), however, those with aberrant vessels crossing the UPJ were allocated specifically to Group I because UPJ anastomosis should be done anterior to the aberrant vessels. Demographic data, intraoperative timings, and postoperative and follow-up outcomes were compared in the two groups. Results: Patients in Group I (n=23) and Group II (n=14) had similar demographic characteristics. Mean operative time was significantly longer in Group I (103.819.95 minutes vs 89.5 +/- 18.90 minutes, p=0.038). Total duration of UPJ repair and anastomosis was also significantly longer in Group I (92.7 +/- 15.82 minutes vs 78.4 +/- 14.76 minutes, p=0.021). The method of pyeloplasty significantly affected the time required to prepare ureter and renal pelvis (p=0.017) and the duration of UPJ anastomosis (p=0.014). Both were shorter in Group II. Mean follow-up period was 14.4 +/- 7.42 months in Group I and 14.05 +/- 7.93 months in Group II (p=0.88). Success rate was 95.6% in Group I and 100% in Group II (p=0.42). Conclusion: Laparoscopic in situ pyeloplasty is a safe and effective approach that can help simplify laparoscopic pyeloplasty, especially at teaching centers where surgeons with variable levels of experience perform laparoscopic procedures.
引用
收藏
页码:218 / 222
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty to treat ureteropelvic junction obstruction
    Patel, Trushar
    Berger, Aaron D.
    Phillips, Courney K.
    Shah, Ojas
    Stifelman, Michael
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2006, 20 : A137 - A137
  • [22] Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children with giant hydronephrosis secondary to ureteropelvic junction obstruction
    Nerli, R. B.
    Reddy, M. N.
    Hiremath, M. B.
    Shishir, D.
    Patil, S. M.
    Guntaka, A.
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGY, 2012, 8 (04) : 401 - 404
  • [23] LAPAROSCOPIC REPAIR FOR URETEROPELVIC JUNCTION OBSTRUCTION
    Stravodimos, Konstantinos G.
    Frangiadis, Evangelos
    Anastasiou, Ioannis
    Mygdalis, Vasileios
    Pournaras, Christos
    Adamakis, Ioannis
    Constantinides, Constantinos
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2012, 26 : A282 - A282
  • [24] Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: comparing daVinci Robotic to classic laparoscopic pyeloplasty
    Burgess, SV
    Woods, MM
    Mendez-Torres, F
    Castle, EP
    Thomas, R
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2005, 173 (04): : 228 - 228
  • [25] Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Comparing Davinci Robotic to classic laparoscopic pyeloplasty
    Woods, M
    Mendez-Torres, F
    Thomas, R
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2004, 171 (04): : 10 - 10
  • [26] Treatment of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction by laparoscopic pyeloplasty
    Mitre, Anuar I.
    Brito, Artur H.
    Duarte, Ricardo J.
    Chambo, Jose L.
    Arap, Marco A.
    Srougi, Miguel
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2006, 20 : A78 - A78
  • [27] Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the standard of care for ureteropelvic junction obstruction
    Kapoor, Anil
    Allard, Christopher B.
    CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2011, 5 (02): : 136 - 138
  • [29] Transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction
    Gomez Rivas, Juan
    Alonso y Gregorio, Sergio
    Portilla Eastmond, Maria A.
    Tabernero Gomez, Angel
    Cisneros Ledo, Jesus
    Hidalgo Togores, Luis
    de la Pena Barthel, Jesus Javier
    CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 66 (03) : 361 - 365
  • [30] Dismembered Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes Pyeloplasty Versus Nondismembered Laparoscopic Y-V Pyeloplasty in the Treatment of Patients with Primary Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: A Prospective Study
    Szydelko, Tomasz
    Kasprzak, Jaroslaw
    Lewandowski, Jaroslaw
    Apoznanski, Wojciech
    Dembowski, Janusz
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2012, 26 (09) : 1165 - 1170