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
  • [31] Is laparoscopic pyeloplasty a comparable option to treat Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO)? A comparative study
    Memon, Mazhar Ali
    Biyabani, Syed Raziuddin
    Ghirano, Rajab
    Aziz, Wajahat
    Siddiqui, Khurram Mutahir
    JOURNAL OF THE PAKISTAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2016, 66 (03) : 324 - 327
  • [32] Retroperitoneoscopic Dismembered Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Modification of the Procedure and Our Experience
    Ou, Zhen-yu
    Chen, Jin-bo
    Chen, Zhi
    Chen, Min-feng
    Liu, Long-fei
    Zhou, Xu
    Li, Yang-le
    Qi, Lin
    Zu, Xiong-bing
    UROLOGY JOURNAL, 2014, 11 (04) : 1763 - 1767
  • [33] Experience with laparoscopic pyeloplasty for treating ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children.: Technique and results
    Subotic, S.
    Schulze, M.
    Goezen, A.
    Rassweiler, J.
    Teber, D.
    UROLOGE, 2008, 47 (06): : 718 - 723
  • [34] Analysis of risk factors for stenosis after laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction
    Ruilong Chen
    Chao Jiang
    Xiang Li
    Chao Yang
    Tengfei Zhu
    Yi Wang
    International Urology and Nephrology, 2024, 56 : 1911 - 1918
  • [35] Outcome analysis of immediate and delayed laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants with severe ureteropelvic junction obstruction
    Bao, Qiao
    Ma, Weijun
    Zhang, Xiewu
    Chen, Shuhan
    Luo, Jiayao
    Zhang, Gang
    Lao, Weihua
    Chen, Yueqing
    FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS, 2022, 10
  • [36] Analysis of risk factors for stenosis after laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction
    Chen, Ruilong
    Jiang, Chao
    Li, Xiang
    Yang, Chao
    Zhu, Tengfei
    Wang, Yi
    INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2024, 56 (06) : 1911 - 1918
  • [37] Evolution in the treatment of the ureteropelvic junction obstruction syndrome. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty
    Gomez Rivas, Juan
    Alonso y Gregorio, Sergio
    Cuello Sanchez, Leslie
    Fontana Portella, Pamela
    Tabernero Gomez, Angel
    Cisneros Ledo, Jesus
    Diez Sebastian, Jesus
    de la Pena Barthel, Jesus Javier
    CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2015, 68 (03) : 384 - 388
  • [38] Robot-assisted laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction
    Bersang, Ann Kortbaek
    Rashu, Badal Sheikho
    Niebuhr, Malene Hartwig
    Fode, Mikkel
    Thomsen, Frederik Ferlov
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2024, 18 (01)
  • [39] Preparation for pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction using a patient-specific laparoscopic simulator: A case report
    Hiroyuki Yamanaka
    Kazuhide Makiyama
    Tomoyuki Tatenuma
    Ryoko Sakata
    Futoshi Sano
    Yoshinobu Kubota
    Journal of Medical Case Reports, 6 (1)
  • [40] Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for repair of pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in children
    Lopez, M.
    Guye, E.
    Varlet, F.
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGY, 2009, 5 (01) : 25 - 29