Cargando…

Robotic Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of complex ureteropelvic junction obstruction cases submitted to robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. METHODS: The records of 131 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty were reviewe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chammas, Mario F., Mitre, Anuar I., Hubert, Nicolas, Egrot, Christophe, Hubert, Jacques
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3939324/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24680152
http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/108680813X13693422519839
_version_ 1782305688803868672
author Chammas, Mario F.
Mitre, Anuar I.
Hubert, Nicolas
Egrot, Christophe
Hubert, Jacques
author_facet Chammas, Mario F.
Mitre, Anuar I.
Hubert, Nicolas
Egrot, Christophe
Hubert, Jacques
author_sort Chammas, Mario F.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of complex ureteropelvic junction obstruction cases submitted to robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. METHODS: The records of 131 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty were reviewed. Of this initial population of cases, 17 were considered complex, consisting of either atypical anatomy (horseshoe kidneys in 3 patients) or previous ureteropelvic junction obstruction management (14 patients). The patients were divided into 2 groups: primary pyeloplasty (group 1) and complex cases (group 2). RESULTS: The mean operative time was 117.3 ± 33.5 minutes in group 1 and 153.5 ± 31.1 minutes in group 2 (P = .002). The median hospital stay was 5.19 ± 1.66 days in group 1 and 5.90 ± 2.33 days in group 2 (P = .326). The surgical findings included 53 crossing vessels in group 1 and 5 in group 2. One patient in group 1 required conversion to open surgery because of technical difficulties. One patient in group 2, with a history of hemorrhagic rectocolitis, presented with peritonitis postoperatively due to a small colonic injury. A secondary procedure was performed after the patient had an uneventful recovery. At 3 months, significant improvement (clinical and radiologic) was present in 93% of cases in group 1 and 88.2% in group 2. At 1 year, all patients in group 2 showed satisfactory results. At a late follow-up visit, 1 patient in group 1 presented with a recurrent obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic pyeloplasty appear to be feasible and effective, showing a consistent success rate even in complex situations. Particular care should be observed during the colon dissection in patients with previous colonic pathology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3939324
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39393242014-03-12 Robotic Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty Chammas, Mario F. Mitre, Anuar I. Hubert, Nicolas Egrot, Christophe Hubert, Jacques JSLS Scientific Papers BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of complex ureteropelvic junction obstruction cases submitted to robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. METHODS: The records of 131 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty were reviewed. Of this initial population of cases, 17 were considered complex, consisting of either atypical anatomy (horseshoe kidneys in 3 patients) or previous ureteropelvic junction obstruction management (14 patients). The patients were divided into 2 groups: primary pyeloplasty (group 1) and complex cases (group 2). RESULTS: The mean operative time was 117.3 ± 33.5 minutes in group 1 and 153.5 ± 31.1 minutes in group 2 (P = .002). The median hospital stay was 5.19 ± 1.66 days in group 1 and 5.90 ± 2.33 days in group 2 (P = .326). The surgical findings included 53 crossing vessels in group 1 and 5 in group 2. One patient in group 1 required conversion to open surgery because of technical difficulties. One patient in group 2, with a history of hemorrhagic rectocolitis, presented with peritonitis postoperatively due to a small colonic injury. A secondary procedure was performed after the patient had an uneventful recovery. At 3 months, significant improvement (clinical and radiologic) was present in 93% of cases in group 1 and 88.2% in group 2. At 1 year, all patients in group 2 showed satisfactory results. At a late follow-up visit, 1 patient in group 1 presented with a recurrent obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic pyeloplasty appear to be feasible and effective, showing a consistent success rate even in complex situations. Particular care should be observed during the colon dissection in patients with previous colonic pathology. Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC3939324/ /pubmed/24680152 http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/108680813X13693422519839 Text en © 2014 by JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/), which permits for noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not altered in any way.
spellingShingle Scientific Papers
Chammas, Mario F.
Mitre, Anuar I.
Hubert, Nicolas
Egrot, Christophe
Hubert, Jacques
Robotic Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty
title Robotic Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty
title_full Robotic Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty
title_fullStr Robotic Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty
title_full_unstemmed Robotic Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty
title_short Robotic Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty
title_sort robotic laparoscopic pyeloplasty
topic Scientific Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3939324/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24680152
http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/108680813X13693422519839
work_keys_str_mv AT chammasmariof roboticlaparoscopicpyeloplasty
AT mitreanuari roboticlaparoscopicpyeloplasty
AT hubertnicolas roboticlaparoscopicpyeloplasty
AT egrotchristophe roboticlaparoscopicpyeloplasty
AT hubertjacques roboticlaparoscopicpyeloplasty