Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Comparison Between Retroperitoneoscopic and Transperitoneal Approach

被引:20
作者
Abuanz, Sami [1 ]
Game, Xavier [1 ]
Roche, Jean-Baptiste [1 ]
Guillotreau, Julien [1 ]
Mouzin, Marc [1 ]
Sallusto, Federico [1 ]
Chaabane, Wassim [1 ]
Malavaud, Bernard [1 ]
Rischmann, Pascal [1 ]
机构
[1] CHU Rangueil, Serv Urol Androl & Transplantat Renale, F-31059 Toulouse, France
关键词
URETEROPELVIC JUNCTION OBSTRUCTION; DISMEMBERED PYELOPLASTY; COMPLICATIONS; ENDOPYELOTOMY; EXPERIENCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.urology.2009.11.062
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 both approaches of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, transperitoneal vs retroperitoneoscopy. METHODS A total of 65 procedures were performed in 62 patients, 36 females and 26 males. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with Anderson Hynes technique was performed transperitoneal in 34 cases and retroperitoneal in 31 cases. Parameters studied were the operative duration, the rate of conversion to open approach, transposition of crossing vessel, complications and reintervention, results, and the duration of hospitalization. Then, overall success rate for both approaches was evaluated in the presence or absence of crossing vessels, and if transposition of crossing vessel was performed vs without. RESULTS The overall success rate for both procedures was 85% (87% for the retroperitoneal vs 82% for the transperitoneal approach). The mean operative duration was 231.69 +/- 59.97 and 194.76 +/- 25.37 minutes for the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches, respectively (P = .029). The rate of conversion was 19.35% (6 of 31) and 2.9% (1 of 34) for the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches, respectively (P = .047). No significant statistical difference was noted between both techniques related to the age of patient, the hospital stay, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Transposition of crossing vessel had no effect on the results (81.25% with transposition and 80% if not, P = .93). CONCLUSIONS Retroperitoneoscopic approach is associated with longer operative time and more conversion rate than transperitoneoscopy. However, the overall outcomes of laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty vs retroperitoneoscopic were comparable. UROLOGY 76: 877-882, 2010. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:877 / 881
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
[31]   Minimal invasive pyeloplasty technique with vertical surgical approach: An alternative to laparoscopic pyeloplasty [J].
Sahin, Coskun ;
Kalkan, Mehmet ;
Uzun, Hakki .
KAOHSIUNG JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2012, 28 (02) :100-104
[32]   Comparative Outcomes of Laparoscopic, Retroperitoneoscopic, and One-Trocar-Assisted-Pyeloplasty in Pediatric Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: A Scoping Review of Literature [J].
Cassaro, Fabiola ;
Impellizzeri, Pietro ;
Montalto, Angela Simona ;
D'Antoni, Santi ;
Bagnara, Vincenzo ;
Romeo, Carmelo ;
Arena, Salvatore .
JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2025,
[33]   Transperitoneal Versus Retroperitoneal Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Children. A Multicentre, Prospective Study [J].
Blanc, Thomas ;
Abbo, Olivier ;
Vatta, Fabrizio ;
Grosman, Julien ;
Marquant, Fabienne ;
Elie, Caroline ;
Juricic, Melodie ;
Laraqui, Samia ;
Broch, Aline ;
Arnaud, Alexis .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY OPEN SCIENCE, 2022, 41 :134-140
[34]   Comparison Between Transperitoneal and Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Paraaortic Lymphadenectomy in Gynecologic Malignancies [J].
Akladios, Cherif ;
Ronzino, Valentine ;
Schrot-Sanyan, Stephanie ;
Afors, Karolina ;
Fernandes, Rodrigo ;
Baldauf, Jean Jacques ;
Wattiez, Arnaud .
JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2015, 22 (02) :268-274
[35]   Comparison between retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy: Are both equally safe? [J].
Prudhomme, T. ;
Roumiguie, M. ;
Gas, J. ;
Soulie, M. ;
Thoulouzan, M. ;
Huyghe, E. .
JOURNAL OF VISCERAL SURGERY, 2021, 158 (03) :204-210
[36]   Comparison of the outcomes of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without concomitant pyelolithotomy [J].
Kadihasanoglu, Mustafa ;
Yucetas, Ugur ;
Karabay, Emre ;
Sonmezay, Erkan .
INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL, 2019, 45 (05) :965-973
[37]   Matched comparison of primary versus salvage laparoscopic pyeloplasty [J].
Ambani, Sapan N. ;
Yang, David Y. ;
Wolf, J. Stuart, Jr. .
WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 35 (06) :951-956
[38]   Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Technique and Results in 80 Consecutive Patients [J].
Castillo, O. A. ;
Cabrera, W. ;
Aleman, E. ;
Vidal-Mora, I. ;
Yanez, R. .
ACTAS UROLOGICAS ESPANOLAS, 2014, 38 (02) :103-108
[39]   Head-to-Head Comparison of Modified Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty and Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in China [J].
Hong, Peng ;
Ding, Guangpu ;
Zhu, Dongdong ;
Yang, Kunlin ;
Pan, Jinhong ;
Li, Xuesong ;
Chen, Zhipeng ;
Zhang, Lei ;
Tang, Qi ;
Hao, Han ;
Zhou, Zhansong ;
Zhou, Liqun .
UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2018, 101 (03) :337-344
[40]   Retroperitoneal and Transperitoneal Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty in Adults: Techniques and Results [J].
Cestari, Andrea ;
Buffi, Nicolo Maria ;
Lista, Giuliana ;
Sangalli, Mattia ;
Scapaticci, Emanuele ;
Fabbri, Fabio ;
Lazzeri, Massimo ;
Rigatti, Patrizio ;
Guazzoni, Giorgio .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2010, 58 (05) :711-718