Cargando…

Comparative, Prospective, Case–Control Study of Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Long-term Results

INTRODUCTION: We compare open pyeloplasty (OP) versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) in children in a multicenter, prospective, case–control study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 2007 to March 2009, a program was established at Hospital Garrahan, the reference center, to perform LP with a mentoring...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Piaggio, Lisandro A., Corbetta, Juan P., Weller, Santiago, Dingevan, Ricardo Augusto, Duran, Víctor, Ruiz, Javier, Lopez, Juan C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5285361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28203561
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2017.00010
_version_ 1782503827616825344
author Piaggio, Lisandro A.
Corbetta, Juan P.
Weller, Santiago
Dingevan, Ricardo Augusto
Duran, Víctor
Ruiz, Javier
Lopez, Juan C.
author_facet Piaggio, Lisandro A.
Corbetta, Juan P.
Weller, Santiago
Dingevan, Ricardo Augusto
Duran, Víctor
Ruiz, Javier
Lopez, Juan C.
author_sort Piaggio, Lisandro A.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: We compare open pyeloplasty (OP) versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) in children in a multicenter, prospective, case–control study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 2007 to March 2009, a program was established at Hospital Garrahan, the reference center, to perform LP with a mentoring surgeon that would attend the institution once a month. Every new case of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) diagnosed in the reference institution was offered to participate in the study. If the patient was enrolled, it was scheduled for LP. The following patient diagnosed with UPJO was operated on with open technique and served as a case–control. In three other facilities, patients were only offered LP and had a matched control open case at the reference institution. The first end point of the study was patient recovery: analgesia requirement and length of hospitalization (LOH). The second end point of the study was resolution of UPJO in long-term follow-up for the two techniques. Demographic data, surgical time, perioperative complications, analgesia requirement, analgesia score during hospitalization, LOH, and outcome were recorded. Both groups received the same postoperative indications for pain control. Parents were asked to assess pain in their children every 4 h postoperatively and to complete a pain scale chart to which the nurses were blinded. RESULTS: Fifteen OP and 15 LP were compared. Groups were similar with regard to sex, age, weight, and laterality. Mean surgical time was longer in LP than in OP group (mean 188 versus 65 min) (p < 0.01). Hospitalization was shorter for LP group with a mean of 1.9 versus 2.5 days for OP group (p < 0.05). Postoperative analgesia requirement was significantly higher in the OP group with a mean use of morphine of 1.7 versus 0.06 mg/kg in the LP group (p < 0.05). Pain scores were similar in both the groups. At a mean follow-up of 58 months there were no failures. CONCLUSION: In this prospective comparative cohort, LP was a longer procedure than OP. Both procedures had the same efficacy and complication rates, but patients undergoing LP needed fewer narcotics for pain control and had a shorter hospitalization.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5285361
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52853612017-02-15 Comparative, Prospective, Case–Control Study of Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Long-term Results Piaggio, Lisandro A. Corbetta, Juan P. Weller, Santiago Dingevan, Ricardo Augusto Duran, Víctor Ruiz, Javier Lopez, Juan C. Front Pediatr Pediatrics INTRODUCTION: We compare open pyeloplasty (OP) versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) in children in a multicenter, prospective, case–control study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 2007 to March 2009, a program was established at Hospital Garrahan, the reference center, to perform LP with a mentoring surgeon that would attend the institution once a month. Every new case of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) diagnosed in the reference institution was offered to participate in the study. If the patient was enrolled, it was scheduled for LP. The following patient diagnosed with UPJO was operated on with open technique and served as a case–control. In three other facilities, patients were only offered LP and had a matched control open case at the reference institution. The first end point of the study was patient recovery: analgesia requirement and length of hospitalization (LOH). The second end point of the study was resolution of UPJO in long-term follow-up for the two techniques. Demographic data, surgical time, perioperative complications, analgesia requirement, analgesia score during hospitalization, LOH, and outcome were recorded. Both groups received the same postoperative indications for pain control. Parents were asked to assess pain in their children every 4 h postoperatively and to complete a pain scale chart to which the nurses were blinded. RESULTS: Fifteen OP and 15 LP were compared. Groups were similar with regard to sex, age, weight, and laterality. Mean surgical time was longer in LP than in OP group (mean 188 versus 65 min) (p < 0.01). Hospitalization was shorter for LP group with a mean of 1.9 versus 2.5 days for OP group (p < 0.05). Postoperative analgesia requirement was significantly higher in the OP group with a mean use of morphine of 1.7 versus 0.06 mg/kg in the LP group (p < 0.05). Pain scores were similar in both the groups. At a mean follow-up of 58 months there were no failures. CONCLUSION: In this prospective comparative cohort, LP was a longer procedure than OP. Both procedures had the same efficacy and complication rates, but patients undergoing LP needed fewer narcotics for pain control and had a shorter hospitalization. Frontiers Media S.A. 2017-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5285361/ /pubmed/28203561 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2017.00010 Text en Copyright © 2017 Piaggio, Corbetta, Weller, Dingevan, Duran, Ruiz and Lopez. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Pediatrics
Piaggio, Lisandro A.
Corbetta, Juan P.
Weller, Santiago
Dingevan, Ricardo Augusto
Duran, Víctor
Ruiz, Javier
Lopez, Juan C.
Comparative, Prospective, Case–Control Study of Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Long-term Results
title Comparative, Prospective, Case–Control Study of Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Long-term Results
title_full Comparative, Prospective, Case–Control Study of Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Long-term Results
title_fullStr Comparative, Prospective, Case–Control Study of Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Long-term Results
title_full_unstemmed Comparative, Prospective, Case–Control Study of Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Long-term Results
title_short Comparative, Prospective, Case–Control Study of Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Long-term Results
title_sort comparative, prospective, case–control study of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: long-term results
topic Pediatrics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5285361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28203561
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2017.00010
work_keys_str_mv AT piaggiolisandroa comparativeprospectivecasecontrolstudyofopenversuslaparoscopicpyeloplastyinchildrenwithureteropelvicjunctionobstructionlongtermresults
AT corbettajuanp comparativeprospectivecasecontrolstudyofopenversuslaparoscopicpyeloplastyinchildrenwithureteropelvicjunctionobstructionlongtermresults
AT wellersantiago comparativeprospectivecasecontrolstudyofopenversuslaparoscopicpyeloplastyinchildrenwithureteropelvicjunctionobstructionlongtermresults
AT dingevanricardoaugusto comparativeprospectivecasecontrolstudyofopenversuslaparoscopicpyeloplastyinchildrenwithureteropelvicjunctionobstructionlongtermresults
AT duranvictor comparativeprospectivecasecontrolstudyofopenversuslaparoscopicpyeloplastyinchildrenwithureteropelvicjunctionobstructionlongtermresults
AT ruizjavier comparativeprospectivecasecontrolstudyofopenversuslaparoscopicpyeloplastyinchildrenwithureteropelvicjunctionobstructionlongtermresults
AT lopezjuanc comparativeprospectivecasecontrolstudyofopenversuslaparoscopicpyeloplastyinchildrenwithureteropelvicjunctionobstructionlongtermresults