Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 28 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 24 - 28 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 30-01-2022

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience

Öz:
Introduction: The aim of the study is to retrospectively evaluate the perioperative and post-operative outcomes of the initial laparoscopic pyeloplasties (LPs); we performed in our clinic in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Materials and Methods: The data of 23 patients who underwent LP with the diagnosis of UPJO between February 2016 and March 2020 in our clinic were retrospectively analyzed. The charts of patients such as demographic data, presenting complaint, pre-operative imaging, operation time, presence of crossing aberrant vessel, post-operative complications, hemoglobin drop, length of drain and hospital stay, and success rates were evaluated. Results: The mean age of patients was 25.5±17.1 (4–63) years with a male predominance of 56.5%. Of the 23 patients, 22 had primary and one patient had secondary UPJO previously treated with retrograde endopyelotomy. The mean operative time, drain stay time, and hospital stay time were 214.8±43.1 (160–310) min, 2.8±1.0 (2–7) days, and 3.5±1.8 (2–9) days, respectively. Although no major operative or post-operative complications were seen in our series, 2 (8.7%) patients had minor operative complications and 4 (17.3%) patients had minor postoperative complications. The mean follow-up period of all patients followed for at least 3 months was 13.9±7.8 (3–34) and the surgical success rate was 95.7%. Conclusion: Due to increased worldwide experience in laparoscopic surgery, the challenge on intracorporeal suturing of LP in initial cases is overcome in a short time. With a high success rate, low post-operative complication rate, and low hospital stay, our initial series results are consistent with high-volume studies in the literature.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Hanske J, Sanchez A, Schmid M, Meyer CP, Abdollah F, Roghmann F, et al. Comparison of 30-day perioperative outcomes in adults undergoing open versus minimally invasive pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Analysis of 593 patients in a prospective national database. World J Urol 2015;33:2107–13. [CrossRef]
  • 2. Khan F, Ahmed K, Lee N, Challacombe B, Khan MS, Dasgupta P. Management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. Nat Rev Urol 2014;11:629–38. [CrossRef]
  • 3. Chevalier RL, Thornhill BA, Forbes MS, Kiley SC. Mechanisms of renal injury and progression of renal disease in congenital obstructive nephropathy. Pediatr Nephrol (Berlin, Germany) 2010;25:687–97. [CrossRef]
  • 4. Park JM, Bloom DA. The pathophysiology of UPJ obstruction. Current concepts. Urol Clin North Am 1998;25:161–9.
  • 5. Anderson JC, Hynes W. Retrocaval ureter: A case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol 1949;21:209–14. [CrossRef]
  • 6. Stein RJ, Gill IS, Desai MM. Comparison of surgical approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Endopyeloplasty versus endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Curr Urol Rep 2007;8:140–9. [CrossRef]
  • 7. Motola JA, Badlani GH, Smith AD. Results of 212 consecutive endopyelotomies: An 8-‘year followup. J Urol 1993;149:453–6.
  • 8. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993;150:1795–9. [CrossRef]
  • 9. Adeyoju AB, Hrouda D, Gill IS. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: The first decade. BJU Int 2004;94:264–7. [CrossRef]
  • 10. Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N, McDougall EM. Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2003;17:155–60.
  • 11. Rassweiler JJ, Teber D, Frede T. Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. World J Urol 2008;26:539–47. [CrossRef]
  • 12. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205–13. [CrossRef]
  • 13. Poulakis V, Witzsch U, Schultheiss D, Rathert P, Becht E. [History of ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair (pyeloplasty). From Trendelenburg (1886) to the present]. Urol A 2004;43:1544–59. [CrossRef]
  • 14. Braga LH, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur Urol 2009;56:848–57. [CrossRef]
  • 15. Tolstrup RS, Pank MT, Sander L, Dørflinger T. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junctions obstruction in adults: 6 years’ experience in one center. Biomed Res İnt 2017;2017:6743512. [CrossRef]
  • 16. Demirdağ ÇÖ, Çitgez S, Önal B, Talat Z. Outcomes of laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adult patients. J Urol Surg 2018;5:174–9. [CrossRef]
  • 17. Van Cangh PJ, Nesa S, Galeon M, Tombal B, Wese FX, Dardenne AN, et al. Vessels around the ureteropelvic junction: Significance and ımaging by conventional radiology. J Endourol 1996;10:111–9. [CrossRef]
  • 18. Nayyar R, Gupta NP, Hemal AK. Robotic management of complicated ureteropelvic junction obstruction. World J Urol 2010;28:599–602. [CrossRef]
  • 19. Skolarikos A, Dellis A, Knoll T. Ureteropelvic obstruction and renal stones: Etiology and treatment. Urolithiasis 2015;43:5–12.
  • 20. Stasinou T, Bourdoumis A, Masood J. Forming a stone in pelviureteric junction obstruction: Cause or effect? Int Braz J Urol 2017;43:13–9. [CrossRef]
  • 21. Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, Guazzoni G, Buffi N, Peters CA, et al. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Eur Urol 2014;65:430–52. [CrossRef]
  • 22. Türk IA, Davis JW, Winkelmann B, Deger S, Richter F, Fabrizio MD, et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty--the method of choice in the presence of an enlarged renal pelvis and crossing vessels. Eur Urol 2002;42:268–75. [CrossRef]
  • 23. Bansal P, Gupta A, Mongha R, Narayan S, Das RK, Bera M, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: Comparison of two surgical approaches a single centre experience of three years. Indian J Surg 2011;73:264–7. [CrossRef]
  • 24. Griessner H, Oberhammer L, Pallauf M, Oswald D, Kunit T, Colleselli D, et al. [A retrospective comparison of robotic assisted and conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in two centres]. Urol A 2020;2020:01414–3.
  • 25. Shoma AM, El Nahas AR, Bazeed MA. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: A prospective randomized comparison between the transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneoscopy. J Urol 2007;178:2020–4; discussion 4. [CrossRef]
  • 26. Moon DA, El-Shazly MA, Chang CM, Gianduzzo TR, Eden CG. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Evolution of a new gold standard. Urology 2006;67:932–6. [CrossRef]
  • 27. Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ong AM, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Current status. BJU Int 2005;95 Suppl 2:102–5. [CrossRef]
  • 28. Gadelmoula M, Abdel-Kader MS, Shalaby M, Abdelrazek M, Moeen AM, Zarzour MA, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: A multi-institutional prospective study. Cent Eur J Urol 2018;71:342–5.
APA demirkol m, BARUT O, Şahinkanat T, resim s, BORAN Ö (2021). Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience. , 24 - 28.
Chicago demirkol mehmet kutlu,BARUT OSMAN,Şahinkanat Tayfun,resim sefa,BORAN ÖMER FARUK Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience. (2021): 24 - 28.
MLA demirkol mehmet kutlu,BARUT OSMAN,Şahinkanat Tayfun,resim sefa,BORAN ÖMER FARUK Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience. , 2021, ss.24 - 28.
AMA demirkol m,BARUT O,Şahinkanat T,resim s,BORAN Ö Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience. . 2021; 24 - 28.
Vancouver demirkol m,BARUT O,Şahinkanat T,resim s,BORAN Ö Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience. . 2021; 24 - 28.
IEEE demirkol m,BARUT O,Şahinkanat T,resim s,BORAN Ö "Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience." , ss.24 - 28, 2021.
ISNAD demirkol, mehmet kutlu vd. "Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience". (2021), 24-28.
APA demirkol m, BARUT O, Şahinkanat T, resim s, BORAN Ö (2021). Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science, 28(1), 24 - 28.
Chicago demirkol mehmet kutlu,BARUT OSMAN,Şahinkanat Tayfun,resim sefa,BORAN ÖMER FARUK Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science 28, no.1 (2021): 24 - 28.
MLA demirkol mehmet kutlu,BARUT OSMAN,Şahinkanat Tayfun,resim sefa,BORAN ÖMER FARUK Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science, vol.28, no.1, 2021, ss.24 - 28.
AMA demirkol m,BARUT O,Şahinkanat T,resim s,BORAN Ö Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science. 2021; 28(1): 24 - 28.
Vancouver demirkol m,BARUT O,Şahinkanat T,resim s,BORAN Ö Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science. 2021; 28(1): 24 - 28.
IEEE demirkol m,BARUT O,Şahinkanat T,resim s,BORAN Ö "Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience." Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science, 28, ss.24 - 28, 2021.
ISNAD demirkol, mehmet kutlu vd. "Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A single-center experience". Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science 28/1 (2021), 24-28.