Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Always Dismembered?

To compare three laparoscopic surgical techniques for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO), assessing their difficulty, operating time, effectiveness, and complications. The clinical histories of 54 patients with UPJO who underwent a laparoscopic procedure between June 2003 and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of endourology 2016-07, Vol.30 (7), p.778-782
Hauptverfasser: Amón Sesmero, José Heriberto, Delgado, Marcos Cepeda, de la Cruz Martín, Beatriz, Serrano, Manuel Ruiz, Mainez Rodríguez, Juan Antonio, Tapia Herrero, Ana María
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To compare three laparoscopic surgical techniques for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO), assessing their difficulty, operating time, effectiveness, and complications. The clinical histories of 54 patients with UPJO who underwent a laparoscopic procedure between June 2003 and September 2013 were reviewed. Anderson-Hynes (A-H) pyeloplasty was performed on 34 patients, nondismembered pyeloplasty on 11 cases (8 Y-V Foley plasty and 3 Fenger plasty), and cephalad vascular displacement or Hellström technique (HT) on 9 patients. The patients were selected for the different techniques depending on the findings during the procedures, according to renal pelvic size and the presence of crossing vessels. We compared the techniques according to intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Complications were interpreted following the Clavien-Dindo classification. The success rate was defined as the absence of clinical symptoms and normal diuretic renography. Analysis of variance and chi-square tests were used for the statistical analysis. Mean follow-up was 55.58 months. The success rate achieved was 88.5% for A-H pyeloplasty, 90.9% for nondismembered pyeloplasty, and 100% for HT (p > 0.05). HT was the least time-consuming: 124 ± 30 vs 202 ± 44 minutes of A-H pyeloplasty and 147 ± 27 minutes of nondismembered plasty (p 
ISSN:0892-7790
1557-900X
DOI:10.1089/end.2015.0800