Journals / Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science / 2021 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 1

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience

Pages
24–28
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)

With a high success rate, low post-operative complication rate, and low hospital stay, our initial series results are consistent with high-volume studies in the literature.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: The aim of the study is to retrospectively evaluate the perioperative and post-operative outcomes of the initial laparoscopic pyeloplasties (LPs); we performed in our clinic in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: The data of 23 patients who underwent LP with the diagnosis of UPJO between February 2016 and March 2020 in our clinic were retrospectively analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:With a high success rate, low post-operative complication rate, and low hospital stay, our initial series results are consistent with high-volume studies in the literature.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Introduction: The aim of the study is to retrospectively evaluate the perioperative and post-operative outcomes of the initial laparoscopic pyeloplasties (LPs); we performed in our clinic in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Materials and Methods: The data of 23 patients who underwent LP with the diagnosis of UPJO between February 2016 and March 2020 in our clinic were retrospectively analyzed. The charts of patients such as demographic data, presenting complaint, pre-operative imaging, operation time, presence of crossing aberrant vessel, post-operative complications, hemoglobin drop, length of drain and hospital stay, and success rates were evaluated. Results: The mean age of patients was 25.5±17.1 (4–63) years with a male predominance of 56.5%. Of the 23 patients, 22 had primary and one patient had secondary UPJO previously treated with retrograde endopyelotomy. The mean operative time, drain stay time, and hospital stay time were 214.8±43.1 (160–310) min, 2.8±1.0 (2–7) days, and 3.5±1.8 (2–9) days, respectively. Although no major operative or post-operative complications were seen in our series, 2 (8.7%) patients had minor operative complications and 4 (17.3%) patients had minor postoperative complications. The mean follow-up period of all patients followed for at least 3 months was 13.9±7.8 (3–34) and the surgical success rate was 95.7%. Conclusion: Due to increased worldwide experience in laparoscopic surgery, the challenge on intracorporeal suturing of LP in initial cases is overcome in a short time. With a high success rate, low post-operative complication rate, and low hospital stay, our initial series results are consistent with high-volume studies in the literature.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMİRKOL, M. K., BARUT, O., ŞAHİNKANAT, T., RESİM, S., BORAN, Ö. F. (2021). Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 1, 24–28. https://ajindex.com/articles/390095

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Hanske J, Sanchez A, Schmid M, Meyer CP, Abdollah F, Roghmann F, et al. Comparison of 30-day perioperative outcomes in adults undergoing open versus minimally invasive pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Analysis of 593 patients in a prospective national database. World J Urol 2015
  2. 2107–13. [CrossRef] 2. Khan F, Ahmed K, Lee N, Challacombe B, Khan MS, Dasgupta P. Management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. Nat Rev Urol 2014
  3. 629–38. [CrossRef] 3. Chevalier RL, Thornhill BA, Forbes MS, Kiley SC. Mechanisms of renal injury and progression of renal disease in congenital obstructive nephropathy. Pediatr Nephrol (Berlin, Germany) 2010
  4. 687–97. [CrossRef] 4. Park JM, Bloom DA. The pathophysiology of UPJ obstruction. Current concepts. Urol Clin North Am 1998
  5. 161–9. 5. Anderson JC, Hynes W. Retrocaval ureter: A case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol 1949
  6. 209–14. [CrossRef] 6. Stein RJ, Gill IS, Desai MM. Comparison of surgical approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Endopyeloplasty versus endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Curr Urol Rep 2007
  7. 140–9. [CrossRef] 7. Motola JA, Badlani GH, Smith AD. Results of 212 consecutive endopyelotomies: An 8-‘year followup. J Urol 1993
  8. 453–6. 8. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993
  9. 1795–9. [CrossRef] 9. Adeyoju AB, Hrouda D, Gill IS. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: The first decade. BJU Int 2004
  10. 264–7. [CrossRef] 10. Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N, McDougall EM. Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2003
  11. 155–60. 11. Rassweiler JJ, Teber D, Frede T. Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. World J Urol 2008
  12. 539–47. [CrossRef] 12. 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
  13. 205–13. [CrossRef] 13. Poulakis V, Witzsch U, Schultheiss D, Rathert P, Becht E. [History of ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair (pyeloplasty). From Trendelenburg (1886) to the present]. Urol A 2004
  14. 1544–59. [CrossRef] 14. Braga LH, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Effect on operative time, length of