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

被引:16
作者
Hong, Peng [1 ]
Ding, Guangpu [1 ]
Zhu, Dongdong [1 ]
Yang, Kunlin [1 ]
Pan, Jinhong [2 ]
Li, Xuesong [1 ]
Chen, Zhipeng [2 ]
Zhang, Lei [1 ]
Tang, Qi [1 ]
Hao, Han [1 ]
Zhou, Zhansong [2 ]
Zhou, Liqun [1 ]
机构
[1] Peking Univ, Dept Urol, Hosp 1, Inst Urol,Natl Urol Canc Ctr, 8 Xishiku St, Beijing 100034, Peoples R China
[2] Third Mil Med Univ, Southwest Hosp, Urol Surg Res Inst, Gao Tanyan Rd 30, Chongqing 400038, Peoples R China
关键词
Robotic surgery; Laparoscopy; Pyeloplasty; Ureteropelvic junction obstruction; DISMEMBERED PYELOPLASTY; TRANSPERITONEAL; SURGERY; RETROPERITONEAL; EXPERIENCE;
D O I
10.1159/000492337
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: 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.
引用
收藏
页码:337 / 344
页数:8
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]  
ANDERSON J C, 1949, Br J Urol, V21, P209, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410X.1949.tb10773.x
[2]   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
[3]  
Bernie Jonathan E, 2005, JSLS, V9, P258
[4]   Complete daVinciTM versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty:: Cost analysis [J].
Bhayani, SB ;
Link, RE ;
Varkarakis, JM ;
Kavoussi, LR .
JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2005, 19 (03) :327-332
[5]   Comparison of Robot-assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Pyeloplasty for Patients With Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: A Single-center Study [J].
Bird, Vincent G. ;
Leveillee, Raymond J. ;
Eldefrawy, Ahmed ;
Bracho, Jorge ;
Aziz, Mohammed S. .
UROLOGY, 2011, 77 (03) :730-734
[6]   Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Robotic-Assisted versus Conventional Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty for Patients with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Effect on Operative Time, Length of Hospital Stay, Postoperative Complications, and Success Rate [J].
Braga, Luis H. P. ;
Pace, Kenneth ;
DeMaria, Jorge ;
Lorenzo, Armando J. .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2009, 56 (05) :848-857
[7]   Laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty [J].
Clements, Thomas ;
Raman, Jay D. .
THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES IN UROLOGY, 2011, 3 (03) :141-149
[8]   Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient: Hand sewn anastomosis versus robotic assisted anastomosis - Is there a difference? [J].
Franco, Israel ;
Dyer, Lori Landau ;
Zelkovic, Paul .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2007, 178 (04) :1483-1486
[9]   Robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in patients of ureteropelvic junction obstruction with previously failed open surgical repair [J].
Hemal, Ashok K. ;
Mishra, Saurabh ;
Mukharjee, Satydip ;
Suryavanshi, Manav .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2008, 15 (08) :744-746
[10]   Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status [J].
Inagaki, T ;
Rha, KH ;
Ong, AM ;
Kavoussi, LR ;
Jarrett, TW .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2005, 95 :102-105