AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightConclusion: Laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty are feasible, effective, reliable and minimally invasive treatment approaches for the treatment of UPJO as compared with open dismembered pyeloplasty.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Objective: To compare the surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic dismem- bered pyeloplasty for the treatment of patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Material and methods: Between 2007 and 2012, a total of 56 patients underwent conventional open (Group 1; n=25), laparoscopic (Group 2; n=16), and robotic (Group 3; n=15) dismembered pyeloplasty operations. Preoperative evaluation was performed using urinalysis, urine culture, blood biochemistry, urinary ultra- sound, intravenous pyelogram (IVP) (optional) and Mercaptoacetyltriglycine (MAG-3) renal scan. The mean operation time, estimated blood loss, drain removal time, narcotic analgesic requirements, length of hospital stay and functional outcomes were compared among groups. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) v. 20 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) software, and sta- tistically signifcant differences were determined using a p value <0.05. Results: The mean age of the patients was 30 years in Group 1, 34.3 years in Group 2 and 32.9 years in Group 3. The mean operation time was 127, 130 and 114 min (p=0.32), and the estimated blood loss was 105, 31 and 28 mL, respectively (p=0.001). The drain was removed after 4.36 (±1.3), 2.33 (±0.6) and 1.8 (±0.6) days after surgery (p<0.001), and the mean hospital stay was 4.14 (±1.8), 2.8 (±0.75) and 2 (±1) days, respectively (p<0.001). Narcotic analgesic requirement was signifcantly higher in Group 1 compared with Groups 2 and 3 (p=0.02). The radiographic and symptomatic success rates were 96% in Group 1, 93.75% in Group 2 and 93.3% in Group 3. Conclusion: Laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty are feasible, effective, reliable and minimally invasive treatment approaches for the treatment of UPJO as compared with open dismembered pyeloplasty.