Cargando…

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic non-dismembered pyeloplasty for uretero-pelvic junction obstruction due to crossing vessels: A matched-paired analysis and review of literature

OBJECTIVE: To compare laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty (LAHP) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic YV-pyeloplasty (LRYVP) in ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJ) in presence of a crossing vessels (CV). METHODS: Our database showed 380 UPJO-cases,who underwent laparoscopic retroperitoneal surg...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rassweiler, Jens, Klein, Jan, Goezen, Ali Serdar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Second Military Medical University 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6033199/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29988898
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2018.03.001
_version_ 1783337658812989440
author Rassweiler, Jens
Klein, Jan
Goezen, Ali Serdar
author_facet Rassweiler, Jens
Klein, Jan
Goezen, Ali Serdar
author_sort Rassweiler, Jens
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty (LAHP) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic YV-pyeloplasty (LRYVP) in ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJ) in presence of a crossing vessels (CV). METHODS: Our database showed 380 UPJO-cases,who underwent laparoscopic retroperitoneal surgery during the last 2 decades including 206 non-dismembered LRYVP, 157 dismembered pyeloplasties LAHP, and 17 cases of laparoscopic ureterolysis. Among them 198 cases were suitable for a matched-pair (2:1) analysis comparing laparoscopic retroperitoneal non-dismembered LRYVP (Group 1, n = 131) and dismembered LAHP (Group 2, n = 67) in presence of a crossing vessel. Patients were matched according to age, gender, kidney functions, and obstruction grade. Complications were graded according to modified Clavien-classification. RESULTS: Comparative data were similar between both groups (LRYVP vs. LAHP) including mean operating time (112 min vs. 114 min), complication rates (4.2% vs. 7.3%) mainly Grade 1–2 according to Clavien classification, and success rates (90% vs. 89%). These results reflected in the reviewed literature indicate that LRYVP provides the advantage of minimal dissection in case of CV with similar outcome. However, redundant pelvis and anteriorly crossing vessels still require a dismembered pyeloplasty LAHP. CONCLUSION: LRYVP has achieved similar results compared with the previous golden standard of open surgery, especially in case of crossing vessels apart from presence of a redundant pelvis or anteriorly crossing vessel. This can be further improved when using the small access retroperitoneoscopic technique respectively mini-laparoscopy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6033199
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Second Military Medical University
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60331992018-07-09 Retroperitoneal laparoscopic non-dismembered pyeloplasty for uretero-pelvic junction obstruction due to crossing vessels: A matched-paired analysis and review of literature Rassweiler, Jens Klein, Jan Goezen, Ali Serdar Asian J Urol Original Article OBJECTIVE: To compare laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty (LAHP) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic YV-pyeloplasty (LRYVP) in ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJ) in presence of a crossing vessels (CV). METHODS: Our database showed 380 UPJO-cases,who underwent laparoscopic retroperitoneal surgery during the last 2 decades including 206 non-dismembered LRYVP, 157 dismembered pyeloplasties LAHP, and 17 cases of laparoscopic ureterolysis. Among them 198 cases were suitable for a matched-pair (2:1) analysis comparing laparoscopic retroperitoneal non-dismembered LRYVP (Group 1, n = 131) and dismembered LAHP (Group 2, n = 67) in presence of a crossing vessel. Patients were matched according to age, gender, kidney functions, and obstruction grade. Complications were graded according to modified Clavien-classification. RESULTS: Comparative data were similar between both groups (LRYVP vs. LAHP) including mean operating time (112 min vs. 114 min), complication rates (4.2% vs. 7.3%) mainly Grade 1–2 according to Clavien classification, and success rates (90% vs. 89%). These results reflected in the reviewed literature indicate that LRYVP provides the advantage of minimal dissection in case of CV with similar outcome. However, redundant pelvis and anteriorly crossing vessels still require a dismembered pyeloplasty LAHP. CONCLUSION: LRYVP has achieved similar results compared with the previous golden standard of open surgery, especially in case of crossing vessels apart from presence of a redundant pelvis or anteriorly crossing vessel. This can be further improved when using the small access retroperitoneoscopic technique respectively mini-laparoscopy. Second Military Medical University 2018-07 2018-03-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6033199/ /pubmed/29988898 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2018.03.001 Text en © 2018 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Rassweiler, Jens
Klein, Jan
Goezen, Ali Serdar
Retroperitoneal laparoscopic non-dismembered pyeloplasty for uretero-pelvic junction obstruction due to crossing vessels: A matched-paired analysis and review of literature
title Retroperitoneal laparoscopic non-dismembered pyeloplasty for uretero-pelvic junction obstruction due to crossing vessels: A matched-paired analysis and review of literature
title_full Retroperitoneal laparoscopic non-dismembered pyeloplasty for uretero-pelvic junction obstruction due to crossing vessels: A matched-paired analysis and review of literature
title_fullStr Retroperitoneal laparoscopic non-dismembered pyeloplasty for uretero-pelvic junction obstruction due to crossing vessels: A matched-paired analysis and review of literature
title_full_unstemmed Retroperitoneal laparoscopic non-dismembered pyeloplasty for uretero-pelvic junction obstruction due to crossing vessels: A matched-paired analysis and review of literature
title_short Retroperitoneal laparoscopic non-dismembered pyeloplasty for uretero-pelvic junction obstruction due to crossing vessels: A matched-paired analysis and review of literature
title_sort retroperitoneal laparoscopic non-dismembered pyeloplasty for uretero-pelvic junction obstruction due to crossing vessels: a matched-paired analysis and review of literature
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6033199/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29988898
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2018.03.001
work_keys_str_mv AT rassweilerjens retroperitoneallaparoscopicnondismemberedpyeloplastyforureteropelvicjunctionobstructionduetocrossingvesselsamatchedpairedanalysisandreviewofliterature
AT kleinjan retroperitoneallaparoscopicnondismemberedpyeloplastyforureteropelvicjunctionobstructionduetocrossingvesselsamatchedpairedanalysisandreviewofliterature
AT goezenaliserdar retroperitoneallaparoscopicnondismemberedpyeloplastyforureteropelvicjunctionobstructionduetocrossingvesselsamatchedpairedanalysisandreviewofliterature