One-Port Retroperitoneoscopic Assisted Pyeloplasty Versus Open Dismembered Pyeloplasty in Young Children: Preliminary Experience

被引:17
|
作者
Caione, Paolo [1 ]
Lais, Alberto
Nappo, Simona Gerocarni
机构
[1] Bambino Gesu Pediat Hosp, Dept Nephrol Urol, Div Pediat Urol, I-00165 Rome, Italy
关键词
hydronephrosis; kidney pelvis; laparoscopy; surgical procedures; minimally invasive; LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY; AGE;
D O I
10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.126
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: We propose 1-port retroperitoneoscopic assisted pyeloplasty as a minimally invasive approach and compare the results to open dismembered pyeloplasty. Materials and Methods: All patients 6 months to 5 years old presenting with ureteropelvic junction obstruction between January 2008 and June 2009 were offered 1-port retroperitoneoscopic assisted pyeloplasty. Age matched patients who underwent open dismembered pyeloplasty during 2007 served as controls. The ureteropelvic junction was isolated retroperitoneoscopically and exteriorized through a single operative trocar. Pyeloplasty was performed in an open fashion with Double-J (R) stenting. Operative time, postoperative pain, surgical complications, hospital stay, ultrasound and mercaptoacetyltriglycine nuclear scan results at 6-month followup were evaluated and compared. Chi-square test and Student's t test were adopted for statistical analysis, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 28 children (17 males) with a mean age of 18 months were treated with 1-port retroperitoneoscopic assisted pyeloplasty (18 left side). The control group consisted of 25 patients (11 males) with a mean age of 19 months who underwent open dismembered pyeloplasty (10 left side). Median operative time was 95 minutes (range 70 to 130) in 1-port retroperitoneoscopic assisted pyeloplasty and 72 minutes (58 to 102) in open dismembered pyeloplasty (p < 0.05). Median postoperative hospital stay was 2.4 days with the 1-port approach and 6.1 days with the open procedure (p < 0.05). Postoperative pain was significantly less in the 1-port group. Skin scar length was 1.4 to 2.9 cm (median 1.7) with 1-port retroperitoneoscopic assisted pyeloplasty and 3.5 to 6.0 cm (4.3) in the open group (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The 1-port retroperitoneoscopic assisted pyeloplasty represents a safe and effective minimally invasive technique to treat hydronephrosis and could be the treatment of choice in young children. The procedure does not require laparoscopic suturing skills, and combines the advantages of open and laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
引用
收藏
页码:2109 / 2115
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] One-Trocar-Assisted Pyeloplasty in Children: An 8-Year Single Institution Experience (vol 25, pg 262, 2015)
    Lima, Mario
    Ruggeri, Giovanni
    Messina, Paolo
    Tursini, Stefano
    Destro, Francesca
    Mogiatti, Mirella
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY, 2015, 25 (03) : E1 - E1
  • [42] Comparison of Cosmetic Results in Children >10 Years Old Undergoing Open, Laparoscopic or Robotic-Assisted Pyeloplasty: A Multicentric Study
    Ghidini, Filippo
    Bortot, Giulia
    Gnech, Michele
    Contini, Giorgia
    Escolino, Maria
    Esposito, Ciro
    Capozza, Nicola
    Berrettini, Alfredo
    Masieri, Lorenzo
    Castagnetti, Marco
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 207 (05) : 1118 - 1126
  • [43] The learning curve for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in children: Our initial experience from a single center
    Junejo, Noor Nabi
    Alotaibi, Anwar
    Alshahrani, Saeed Malwi
    Alshammari, Ahmad
    Peters, Craig A.
    Alhazmi, Hamdan
    Vallasciani, Santiago A.
    UROLOGY ANNALS, 2020, 12 (01) : 19 - 24
  • [44] Laparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty: Comparison of Two Surgical Approaches- A Single Centre Experience of Three Years
    Punit Bansal
    Aman Gupta
    Ritesh Mongha
    Srinivas Narayan
    Ranjit K. Das
    Malay Bera
    Sudip C. Chakraborty
    Anup K. Kundu
    Indian Journal of Surgery, 2011, 73 : 264 - 267
  • [45] Parental Satisfaction After Open Versus Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Results From Modified Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory Survey
    Freilich, Drew A.
    Penna, Frank J.
    Nelson, Caleb P.
    Retik, Alan B.
    Nguyen, Hiep T.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 183 (02) : 704 - 708
  • [46] Laparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty: Comparison of Two Surgical Approaches- A Single Centre Experience of Three Years
    Bansal, Punit
    Gupta, Aman
    Mongha, Ritesh
    Narayan, Srinivas
    Das, Ranjit K.
    Bera, Malay
    Chakraborty, Sudip C.
    Kundu, Anup K.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2011, 73 (04) : 264 - 267
  • [47] Comparative, Prospective, Case-Control Study of Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Long-term Results
    Piaggio, Lisandro A.
    Corbetta, Juan P.
    Weller, Santiago
    Augusto Dingevan, Ricardo
    Duran, Victor
    Ruiz, Javier
    Lopez, Juan C.
    Frontiers in Pediatrics, 2017, 5
  • [48] Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children less than 20 kg by weight: single-center experience
    Ganpule, Arvind
    Jairath, Ankush
    Singh, Abhishek
    Mishra, Shashikant
    Sabnis, Ravindra
    Desai, Mahesh
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2015, 33 (11) : 1867 - 1873
  • [49] Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children less than 20 kg by weight: single-center experience
    Arvind Ganpule
    Ankush Jairath
    Abhishek Singh
    Shashikant Mishra
    Ravindra Sabnis
    Mahesh Desai
    World Journal of Urology, 2015, 33 : 1867 - 1873
  • [50] Pyeloplasty in children: perioperative results and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery
    Salo, Martin
    Altemani, Tania Sjoberg
    Anderberg, Magnus
    PEDIATRIC SURGERY INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 32 (06) : 599 - 607