Dergiler / Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni / 2021 / Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 2

Impact of Extracorporeal Stent Placement during Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty on Operative Duration

Sayfa
162–166
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Conclusion: According to the consequences in this study, extracorporeally ureteric stent insertion during laparoscopic pyeloplasty shortens the length of operation duration so that extracorporeal insertion might be preferred in cases where it is difficult to place the stent during laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objectives: Ureteric stent insertion during laparoscopic pyeloplasty is the common practice for the reconstruction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methods: A total of 36 children who underwent pyeloplasty for UPJO were evaluated retrospectively.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Conclusion: According to the consequences in this study, extracorporeally ureteric stent insertion during laparoscopic pyeloplasty shortens the length of operation duration so that extracorporeal insertion might be preferred in cases where it is difficult to place the stent during laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Objectives: Ureteric stent insertion during laparoscopic pyeloplasty is the common practice for the reconstruction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). The long and hard learning curve of the method leads still controversy among surgeons. The utility of extracorporeal stent insertion in terms of shortening the length of operation time will be discussed in this study. Methods: A total of 36 children who underwent pyeloplasty for UPJO were evaluated retrospectively. Indications for pyeloplasty were: Obstruction findings in renal scintigraphy, progressive kidney function loss, increasing in anteroposterior pelvis diameter in renal ultrasonography, and current clinical symptoms (febrile urinary tract infection and flank pain). Extracorporeal stent insertion procedure was performed as the following order: Ureteropelvic area and ureter were visualized transperitoneal by three trochars, and UPJO was excised. Thereafter, the ureter is taken out of the skin from pelvic trochar entrance and is spatulated. JJ stent is placed into the ureter. Following this move, the ureter is taken into the intra-abdominal area and first ureteropelvic suture is performed intra-abdominally. Results: Thirteen of patients were girls and 23 were boys. Open surgery was applied for 15 patients (Group 1) and laparoscopic pyeloplasty (Group 2) to 21 patients. In Group 2, JJ stent was placed intracorporeally for six patients (Group 2a) and extracorporeally for the other 15 patients (Group 2b). The average age in Group 1 was 49.2±52 months; it was 86±29 months in Group 2a and 144±52 months in Group 2b, and the significant difference was present (p<0.001). There was statistically significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 regarding with mean hospital stay (40 h in Group 1 and 42 h in Group 2; p=0.001). Post-operative JJ stent removal time was 58.8 days in Group 1 and 52.89 days in Group 2. In Group 2b patients, placing the stent extracorporeally took a significantly shorter operation time and the difference between the operation times of the groups (2a [192 min±3.76] and 2b [135 min±2.6] [p<0.001]) was statistically significant. No statistical difference was found between Group 1 (9.87±5.5 mm) and Group 2 (12.91±5.3 mm) in terms of renal anteroposterior diameters in the control ultrasonographic evaluation at the postoperative 2nd year (p=0.23). There was no difference between the two groups as a result of the evaluation of renal functions by scintigraphy at the post-operative 1st year (Group 1: 3.95±2%; and Group 2: 0.78±5.3%). Conclusion: According to the consequences in this study, extracorporeally ureteric stent insertion during laparoscopic pyeloplasty shortens the length of operation duration so that extracorporeal insertion might be preferred in cases where it is difficult to place the stent during laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

DEMİRKAN, H., HORASANLI, K. (2021). Impact of Extracorporeal Stent Placement during Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty on Operative Duration. Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni, Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 2, 162–166. https://ajindex.com/articles/363646

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Mandhani A, Goel S, Bhandari M. Is antegrade stenting superior to retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty? J Urol 2004;171:1440–2
  2. Chandrasekharam VV. Is retrograde stenting more reliable than antegrade stenting for pyeloplasty in infants and children? Urology 2005;66:1301–4
  3. Arumainayagam N, Minervini A, Davenport K, Kumar V, Masieri L, Serni S, et al. Antegrade versus retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2008;22:671–4
  4. Minervini A, Siena G, Masieri L, Lapini A, Serni S, Carini M. Antegrade stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty: feasibility of the technique and time required for stent insertion. Surg Endosc 2009;23:1831–4. 5. van der Toorn F, van den Hoek J, Wolffenbuttel KP, Scheepe JR. Laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty in children from age of 3 years: our clinical outcomes compared with open surgery. J Pediatr Urol 2013;9:161–8
  5. Moore K, Lorenzo AJ, Turner S, Bägli DJ, Pippi Salle JL, Farhat WA. Prospective cost analysis of laparoscopic vs. open pyeloplasty in children: Single centre contemporary evaluation comparing two procedures over a 1-year period. Can Urol Assoc J 2013;7:94–8
  6. Mei H, Pu J, Yang C, Zhang H, Zheng L, Tong Q. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 2011;25:727–36
  7. Cho SY, Kim IS, Lee SB, Choi H, Park K. Nature and fate of supranormal differential renal function: lessons from long-term follow-up after pyeloplasty. Urology 2013;81:163–7
  8. Kocherov S, Lev G, Chertin L, Chertin B. Extracorporeal ureteric stenting for pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2016;26:203–6
  9. Nadu A, Mor Y, Ramon J. Direct extracorporeal ureteric stenting during laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a novel technique. BJU Int 2009;103:844–7
  10. Kajbafzadeh AM, Zeinoddini A, Ebadi M, Heidari R, Tajalli A. External extension of double-J ureteral stent during pyeloplasty: inexpensive stent and non-cystoscopic removal. Int Urol Nephrol 2014;46:671–6
  11. Tanaka ST, Grantham JA, Thomas JC, Adams MC, Brock JW 3rd, Pope JC 4th. A comparison of open vs laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty using the pediatric health information system database--do benefits of laparoscopic approach recede at younger ages? J Urol 2008;180:1479–85
  12. Braga LH, Lorenzo AJ, Bägli DJ, Mahdi M, Salle JL, Khoury AE, et al. Comparison of flank, dorsal lumbotomy and laparoscopic approaches for dismembered pyeloplasty in children o