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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |