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