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
  • [41] Robot-Assisted Retroperitoneoscopic Traction-Aligned Suture Repair of Failed Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction
    Nakajima, Hideaki
    Tsukui, Takafumi
    Koga, Hiroyuki
    Lane, Geoffrey J.
    Yamataka, Atsuyuki
    [J]. ASIAN JOURNAL OF ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY, 2025, 18 (01)
  • [42] Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus robotic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a series of 60 cases performed by a single surgeon
    Hemal, Ashok K.
    Mukherjee, Satyadip
    Singh, Kaku
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 17 (01) : 5012 - 5016
  • [43] Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty vs. robot-assisted pyeloplasty for the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children
    Perez-Marchan, Marcos
    Perez-Brayfield, Marcos
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS, 2022, 10
  • [44] Endoscopic and laparoscopic treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction
    Pardalidis, NP
    Papatsoris, AG
    Kosmaoglou, EV
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2002, 168 (05) : 1937 - 1940
  • [45] Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single center experience and a review of the literature
    Diamantidis, Dimitrios
    Lailisidis, Stavros
    Panagiotopoulos, Nikolaos
    Giannopoulos, Stavros
    Georgellis, Chrysostomos
    Tsakaldimis, Georgios
    Kalaitzis, Christos
    Giannakopoulos, Stilianos
    [J]. BMC UROLOGY, 2025, 25 (01):
  • [46] Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction
    Basatac, Cem
    Boylu, Ugur
    Onol, Fikret Fatih
    Gumus, Eyup
    [J]. TURKISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 40 (01): : 24 - 30
  • [47] An updated meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children
    Huang, Yidong
    Wu, Yang
    Shan, Wei
    Zeng, Li
    Huang, Lugang
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2015, 8 (04): : 4922 - 4931
  • [48] Comparison of surgical approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Endopyeloplasty versus endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty
    Stein R.J.
    Gill I.S.
    Desai M.M.
    [J]. Current Urology Reports, 2007, 8 (2) : 140 - 149
  • [49] Is Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Infants Under 1 Year of Age a Good Option?
    Snykers, Corina Zamfir
    De Plaen, Elea
    Vermersch, Sophie
    Lopez, Manuel
    Khelif, Karim
    Luyckx, Sfephane
    Philippe, Paul
    Varlet, Francois
    Steyaert, Henri
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS, 2019, 7
  • [50] Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in an Incompletely Duplicated Collecting System in a Patient with a Horseshoe Kidney
    Tsuru, Nobuo
    Mugiya, Soichi
    Kurita, Yutaka
    Sato, Shigenori
    Hirano, Yasuhiro
    [J]. UROLOGY CASE REPORTS, 2016, 9 : 55 - 57