Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2011 / Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 2

Transperitoneal robotic pyeloplasty: our initial experiences

Transperitoneal robotik piyeloplasti: İlk deneyimlerimiz

Pages
118–122
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty with its high success rates and low morbidity is an effective, safe, and minimally invasive approach for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate surgical and functional outcomes of the robotic assisted pyeloplasty cases.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: Between August 2008 and November 2010, 12 patients underwent transperitoneal robotic (4 ports) pyeloplasty.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty with its high success rates and low morbidity is an effective, safe, and minimally invasive approach for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate surgical and functional outcomes of the robotic assisted pyeloplasty cases. Materials and methods: Between August 2008 and November 2010, 12 patients underwent transperitoneal robotic (4 ports) pyeloplasty. Patients were evaluated with preoperative physical examination, intravenous urography, and diuretic renography. The presence of crossing vessels, blood loss, operative time, mean follow-up period, and perioperative complications were analyzed. Results: The mean age was 33 years (range 14-62 years). All patients underwent robotic-assisted dismembred pyeloplasty. Ureteral stent was placed in an antegrade fashion. Mean operative time was 124 min, and estimated blood loss was 80 cc. Crossing vessels were observed in 4 patients, and transposition was performed. The drain was removed after a mean of 3 days. The mean length of hospital stay was 3.6 days. One patient needed blood transfusion postoperatively. No evidence of obstruction was observed at a mean of 16-month follow-up. Conclusion: Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty with its high success rates and low morbidity is an effective, safe, and minimally invasive approach for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Özet

Amaç: Transperitoneal robotik piyeloplasti olgularının cerrahi ve fonksiyonel sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi. Gereç ve yöntem: Ağustos 2008 ile Kasım 2010 tarihleri arasında 12 hastaya robotik (4 port) transperitoneal piyeloplasti uygulandı. Hastalar operasyon öncesi fizik muayene, intravenöz pyelografi ve diüretikli renografi ile değerlendirildi. Çaprazlayan damar mevcudiyeti, kan kaybı, operasyon süresi, ortalama takip süresi ve komplikasyonlar değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Ortalama hasta yaşı 33 (dağılım 14-62) idi. Tüm hastalara dismembred robotik piyeloplasti uygulandı. Üreteral stent tüm olgularda antegrad yolla yerleştirildi. Ortalama operasyon süresi 124 dakikaydı ve ortalama kan kaybı 80 cc idi. Dört hastada çaprazlayan damar izlendi ve transpozisyon uygulandı. Hastaların drenleri ortalama 3 gün sonra çekildi. Hastanede kalış süresi ortalama 3.6 gündü. Postoperatif dönemde bir olguya transfüzyon yapıldı. Ortalama 16 aylık takipte hiçbir hastada obstrüksiyon bulgusuna rastlanmadı. Sonuç: Robotik piyeloplasti yüksek başarı oranı ve düşük morbidite ile üreteropelvik bileşke darlıklarının cerrahi tedavisinde güvenli, etkin ve minimal invazif bir yöntemdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAŞATAÇ, C., BOYLU, U., TURAN, T., KÜÇÜK, E. V., GÜMÜŞ, E. (2011). Transperitoneal robotic pyeloplasty: our initial experiences. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 2, 118–122. https://ajindex.com/articles/328661

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Poulakis V, Witzsch U, Schultheiss D, Rathert P, Becht E. History of ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair (pyeloplasty). From Trendelenburg (1886) to the present. [Article in German] Urologe A 2004;43:1544-59
  2. Badlani G, Eshghi M, Smith AD. Percutaneous surgery for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (endopyelotomy): technique and early results. J Urol 1986;135:26-8
  3. Inglish JA, Tolley DA. Ureteroscopic retrograde and antegrade percutaneous techniques. Br J Urol 1986;58:250-2
  4. Yong D, Albala DM. Endopyelotomy in the age of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. Curr Urol Rep 2010;11:74-9
  5. Penn HA, Gatti JM, Hoestje SM, DeMarco RT, Snyder CL, Murphy JP. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children: preliminary report of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 2010;184:690-5
  6. Cheema IA, Manecksha RP, Flynn R. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ir Med J 2010;103:24-6
  7. Srivastava A, Singh P, Maheshwari R, Ansari MS, Dubey D, Kapoor R, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a versatile alternative to open pyeloplasty. Urol Int 2009;83:420-4
  8. Clayman RV. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. J Urol 2003;170:691-2
  9. Erdeljan P, Caumartin Y, Warren J, Nguan C, Nott L, Luke PP, et al. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: follow-up first Canadian experience with comparison of outcomes between experienced and trainee surgeons. J Endourol 2010;24:1447-50
  10. Gupta NP, Nayyar R, Hemal AK, Mukherjee S, Kumar R, Dogra PN. Outcome analysis of robotic pyeloplasty: a large single-centre experience. BJU Int 2010;105:980-3
  11. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-13
  12. Patel V. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 2005;66:45-9
  13. Motola JA, Badlani GH, Smith AD. Results of 212 consecutive endopyelotomies: an 8-year followup. J Urol 1993;149:453-6
  14. Danuser H, Ackermann DK, Böhlen D, Studer UE. Endopyelotomy for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: risk factors determine the success rate. J Urol 1998;159:56-61
  15. Gerber GS, Lyon ES. Endopyelotomy: patient selection, results, and complications. Urology 1994;43:2-10
  16. Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, Schuessler WW, Moore RG. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology 1995;46:791-5. 17.Chen RN, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR. La