Retroperitoneal versus Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Our Experience

被引:16
作者
Qadri, Syed Javid Farooq [1 ]
Khan, Muneer [1 ]
机构
[1] Govt Med Coll Srinagar, Dept Surg, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
关键词
Ureteropelvic junction obstruction; Retroperitoneal; Transperitoneal; Laparoscopic pyeloplasty; Ureteric stenting; URETEROPELVIC JUNCTION OBSTRUCTION; RETROGRADE ENDOPYELOTOMY; DISMEMBERED PYELOPLASTY;
D O I
10.1159/000319395
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
Objective: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty, which has been quoted to have a success rate equivalent to open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO), can be performed transperitoneally and retroperitoneally. The aim of the present study is to report our experience with these 2 routes of laparoscopic pyeloplasty and to further improve our understanding of the merits and demerits of these 2 routes. Patients and Methods: A total of 47 laparoscopic pyeloplasties were performed at our center from June 2000 to August 2009. Twelve pyeloplasties were performed transperitoneally and 35 retroperitoneally. Results: In the retroperitoneal group, we had a success rate of 91.5% after a mean follow-up of 22 months, and in the transperitoneal group, we had a success rate of 91.7% after a mean follow-up of 48 months. The mean operative time was 156 min in the retroperitoneal group and 195 min in the transperitoneal group. Conclusion: This study shows a success rate comparable with open pyeloplasty and favors the retroperitoneal route with a shorter operative time, less dissection needed, a higher sensitivity of detecting crossing vessels, a decreased risk in visceral injury and an early start of oral feeds. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
引用
收藏
页码:309 / 313
页数:5
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]   Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Determining durability of endourological intervention [J].
Albani, JM ;
Yost, AJ ;
Streem, SB .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2004, 171 (02) :579-582
[2]   Is open pyeloplasty still justified? [J].
Arun, N ;
Kekre, NS ;
Nath, V ;
Gopalakrishnan, G .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1997, 80 (03) :379-381
[3]   Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: Assessment of objective and subjective outcome [J].
Bauer, JJ ;
Bishoff, JT ;
Moore, RG ;
Chen, RN ;
Iverson, AJ ;
Kavoussi, LR .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1999, 162 (03) :692-695
[4]   COMPARISON OF OPEN AND ENDOUROLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE OBSTRUCTED URETEROPELVIC JUNCTION [J].
BROOKS, JD ;
KAVOUSSI, LR ;
PREMINGER, GM ;
SCHUESSLER, WW ;
MOORE, RG .
UROLOGY, 1995, 46 (06) :791-795
[5]  
Deger S., 2003, Urologe A, V42, P347
[6]   Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: 50 consecutive cases [J].
Eden, CG ;
Cahill, D ;
Allen, JD .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2001, 88 (06) :526-531
[7]  
Gnanapragasam VJ, 2001, ANN ROY COLL SURG, V83, P347
[8]   Open surgical exploration after failed endopyelotomy: A 12-year perspective [J].
Gupta, M ;
Tuncay, OL ;
Smith, AD .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1997, 157 (05) :1613-1618
[9]   Cost-effective laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Single center experience [J].
Hemal, AK ;
Goel, R ;
Goel, A .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2003, 10 (11) :563-568
[10]   Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: The first 100 cases [J].
Jarrett, TW ;
Chan, DY ;
Charambura, TC ;
Fugita, O ;
Kavoussi, LR .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2002, 167 (03) :1253-1256