Landa-Juárez S, López-Pérez D, Hernández-Aguilar G, Miguel-Gómez RD

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 120-125
PDF size: 301.71 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty offers equiparable outcomes when compared with traditional pproach. Laparoscopic transmesenteric approach does not need of colon descent for an optimal exposition of the pyeloureteral junction.
Material and methods: From 2005 to 2006, we perform 9 laparoscopic transmesenteric pieloplasties. With the patient in lumbar position with flex, optical of 5 mm, 30 degree and two work ports. The mesocolon is opened, where the stenosis is projected, traction and cut of ureteropelvic junction is made, anastomosis with continual suture and placement of JJ catheter.
Results: We perform 9 laparoscopic transmesenteric left pyeloplasties. Age range varied from 9 months to 15 years. Operating time range varied from 180 to 330 minutes. Only one case presented re-stenosis.
Discussion: Laparoscopic transmesenteric pyeloplasty allouds enough and quick exposition of the stenosis area, the distended pelvic junction allouds the dissection and pyeloplasty. The outcome is equiparable with the obtained with traditional approach.

REFERENCES

1. Landa, S.J., Maldonado, W.S., Hernández, G.H., Zaldivar, J.C., Zepeda, J.S. y Velásquez, J.O : Obstruccion pieloureteral: experiencia de 13 años.. Rev Mex Cir Ped, 6: 52, 1999

2. Shuessler, W.W., Grune, M.T., Tecuanhuey, L.V. and Preminger, G.M.: Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol, 150: 1795, 1993

3. Klingler, H.C., Remzi, M., Janetschek, G., Kratzik, C. and Marberger, M.J.: Comparision of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol, 44: 340, 2003

4. Tan, B.J., Rastinehad, A.R., Marcovich, R., Smith, A.D. and Lee, B.R.: Trends in ureteropelvic junction obstruction management among urologists in the United States. Urology, 65: 260, 2005

5. Schwab, C.W. II and Casale, P.: Bilateral dismembered laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty via transperitoneal 4-port approach J Urol, 174: 1091, 2005

6. Bauer, J.J., Bishoff, J.T., Moore, R.G., Chen, R. N., Iverson, A.J., and Kavoussi, L.R. J Urol. 162: 692, 1999

7. Chiu, A.W., Chen, K.K. and Chang, L.S.: Retroperitoneoscopic dismembered pyloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Endourol, suppl., 8: S60, 1994

8. Eden, C., Gianduzzo, T., Chang, C., Thiruchelvam, N. and Jones, A.: Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyloplasty for primary and secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol, 172: 2308, 2004

9. Pareek, G., Hedican, S.P., Gee, J.R., Bruskewitz, R. C. and Nakada, S.Y.: Meta-analysis of the complications of laparoscopic renal surgery: comparision of procedures and techniques. J Urol, 175:1208, 2006

10. Romero, F.R., Wagner, A.A., Trapp, C., Permpongkosol, S., Muntener, M., Link, R.E. and Kavoussi, L.R.: Transmesenteric Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty. J Urol, 176: 2526, 2006

11. Eposito C., Lima M. et al. Complications in Pediatric urological laparoscopy: Mistakes and risks. J Urol,169:1490, 2003

12. Karklin G.S., Badlani G.H., Smith A.D.:Endopyelotomy versus open pyeloplasty. Comparison in 88 patiens. J Urol, 140:476, 1999

13. Webster, T.M., Baumgartner, R., Sprunger, J.K., Baldwin, D.D., McDougall, E.M. and Herrell, S.D.: A clinical pathway for laparoscopic pyloplasty decreases length of stay. J Urol, 173:2081, 2005

14. Rubinstein, M., Finelli, A., Moinzadeh, A., Singh, D., Ukimura, O., Desai, M.M. et al: Outpatient laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Urology, 66: 41, 2005

15. Ost, M.C., Kaye, J.D., Guttman, M.J., Lee, B.R. and Smith, A.D.: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus antegrade endopyelotomy: comparison in 100 patients and a new algorithm for the minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology, 66: 47, 2005