Cargando…

Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to analyze the operative, postoperative and functional outcome of laparoscopic management of previously failed pyeloplasty and to compare operative and postoperative outcome with laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). MATERIALS AND METH...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abraham, George P., Siddaiah, Avinash T., Ramaswami, Krishnamohan, George, Datson, Das, Krishanu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4374256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25834982
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.150489
_version_ 1782363457552646144
author Abraham, George P.
Siddaiah, Avinash T.
Ramaswami, Krishnamohan
George, Datson
Das, Krishanu
author_facet Abraham, George P.
Siddaiah, Avinash T.
Ramaswami, Krishnamohan
George, Datson
Das, Krishanu
author_sort Abraham, George P.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim was to analyze the operative, postoperative and functional outcome of laparoscopic management of previously failed pyeloplasty and to compare operative and postoperative outcome with laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent laparoscopic management for previously failed dismembered pyeloplasty were analyzed in this study. Detailed clinical and imaging evaluation was performed. Transperitoneal approach was followed to repair the recurrent UPJO. Operative, postoperative, and follow-up functional details were recorded. Operative and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty were compared with that of laparoscopic primary pyeloplasty. RESULTS: A total of 16 patients were managed with laparoscopic approach for previously failed pyeloplasty. Primary surgical approach for dismembered pyeloplasty was open in 11, laparoscopy in four patients and robotic assisted in one patient. Fifteen were treated with redo pyeloplasty and one with ureterocalicostomy. Mean operative time was 191.25 ± 24.99 min, mean duration of hospital stay was 3.2 ± 0.45 days and mean follow-up duration was 29.9 ± 18.5 months with success rate of 93.3%. Operative time was significantly prolonged with redo pyeloplasty group compared with primary pyeloplasty group (191.25 ± 24.99 vs. 145 ± 22.89, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty is a viable option with a satisfactory outcome and less morbidity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4374256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43742562015-04-01 Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty Abraham, George P. Siddaiah, Avinash T. Ramaswami, Krishnamohan George, Datson Das, Krishanu Urol Ann Original Article OBJECTIVE: The aim was to analyze the operative, postoperative and functional outcome of laparoscopic management of previously failed pyeloplasty and to compare operative and postoperative outcome with laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent laparoscopic management for previously failed dismembered pyeloplasty were analyzed in this study. Detailed clinical and imaging evaluation was performed. Transperitoneal approach was followed to repair the recurrent UPJO. Operative, postoperative, and follow-up functional details were recorded. Operative and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty were compared with that of laparoscopic primary pyeloplasty. RESULTS: A total of 16 patients were managed with laparoscopic approach for previously failed pyeloplasty. Primary surgical approach for dismembered pyeloplasty was open in 11, laparoscopy in four patients and robotic assisted in one patient. Fifteen were treated with redo pyeloplasty and one with ureterocalicostomy. Mean operative time was 191.25 ± 24.99 min, mean duration of hospital stay was 3.2 ± 0.45 days and mean follow-up duration was 29.9 ± 18.5 months with success rate of 93.3%. Operative time was significantly prolonged with redo pyeloplasty group compared with primary pyeloplasty group (191.25 ± 24.99 vs. 145 ± 22.89, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty is a viable option with a satisfactory outcome and less morbidity. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4374256/ /pubmed/25834982 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.150489 Text en Copyright: © Urology Annals http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Abraham, George P.
Siddaiah, Avinash T.
Ramaswami, Krishnamohan
George, Datson
Das, Krishanu
Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty
title Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty
title_full Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty
title_fullStr Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty
title_short Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty
title_sort laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4374256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25834982
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.150489
work_keys_str_mv AT abrahamgeorgep laparoscopicmanagementofrecurrentureteropelvicjunctionobstructionfollowingpyeloplasty
AT siddaiahavinasht laparoscopicmanagementofrecurrentureteropelvicjunctionobstructionfollowingpyeloplasty
AT ramaswamikrishnamohan laparoscopicmanagementofrecurrentureteropelvicjunctionobstructionfollowingpyeloplasty
AT georgedatson laparoscopicmanagementofrecurrentureteropelvicjunctionobstructionfollowingpyeloplasty
AT daskrishanu laparoscopicmanagementofrecurrentureteropelvicjunctionobstructionfollowingpyeloplasty