medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2018, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2018; 78 (2)

Comparison of the medium-term results between open pyeloplasty and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in adult patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction

Ransom-Rodríguez A, Méndez-Probst CE, Gabilondo-Pliego B, Kobashi-Sandoval E, Rodríguez-Covarrubias F

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 91-97
PDF size: 390.53 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the medium-term results between open pyeloplasty and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in patients with primary or secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
Materials and Methods: A descriptive, observational, longitudinal, retrospective study was conducted on adult patients that underwent open pyeloplasty or laparoscopic pyeloplasty due to ureteropelvic junction obstruction, within the time frame of January 2007 and March 2017. The variables of surgical success (complete symptom cessation and kidney function improvement) and postoperative complications determined through the Clavien-Dindo classification were analyzed. The qualitative variables were compared using the χ2 test and the independent variables with abnormal distribution were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Statistical significance was set at a p ‹0.05.
Results: Forty patients were registered. Their mean age was 39 years and they had a mean follow-up of 38 months (1-180). The patients that underwent the laparoscopic approach had a shorter hospital stay (3.6 ± 1.4 days vs 6.9 ± 2.1 days; p = 0.001). The laparoscopic pyeloplasty success rate was 92% in patients with no prior treatment and 100% in previously treated patients. Low-grade complications (Clavien-Dindo I and II) presented in 40% of the open surgery patients and in 44% of the patients in the laparoscopic group.
Conclusions: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty and open pyeloplasty had similar success rates and outcomes and can be considered safe therapeutic options for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.


REFERENCES

  1. 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.

  2. O’Reilly PH, Lawson RS, Shields RA, Testa HJ. Idiopathic hydronephrosis -the diuresis renogram: a new non-invasive method of assessing equivocal pelvioureteral junction obstruction. J Urol 1979;121:153-55.

  3. Poulakis V, Witzsch U, Schultheiss D, Rathert P, Becht E. Die Geschichte der operativen Behandlung der Harnleiterabgangsstenose (Pyeloplastik). Der Urol Ausgabe A 2004;43:1544-59.

  4. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993;150:1795-9.

  5. Rogers A, Hasan T. Management of secondary pelviureteric junction obstruction. Ind J Urol 2013;29:294-302.

  6. Rassweiler JJ, Subotic S, Feist-Schwenk M, Sugiono M, Schulze M, Teber D, et al. Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Long-term experience with an algorithm for laser endopyelotomy and laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty. J Urol 2007;177:1000-5.

  7. Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ. Comparison of Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty Techniques in Treatment of Uretero-Pelvic Junction Obstruction. Eur Urol 2003;44:340-5.

  8. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009;250:187-196.

  9. Patel V. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 2005;66:45-9.

  10. Başataç C, Boylu U, Önol FF, Gümüş Eyüp. Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Turk J Urol 2014;40:24-30.

  11. Huang Y, Wu Y, Shan W, Zeng L, Huang L. An updated meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;15:4922-31.

  12. Castillejos-Molina RA, Rodríguez-Covarrubias F, Feria- Bernal G, Gabilondo-Navarro F. Obstrucción ureteropiélica, tratamiento quirúrgico. Gac Med Méx 2006;142:205-8.

  13. Janetschek G, Peschel R, Frauscher F. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Urol Clin North Am 2000;27:695.

  14. Frauscher F, Janetschek G, Klauser A, Peschel R, Halpern EJ, Pallwein L, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for UPJ obstruction with crossing vessels: contrast-enhanced colour Doppler findings and long-term outcome. Urology 2002;59:500.

  15. Maldonado-Valadez R, Badillo-Santoyo MA, Sánchez-Gutiérrez J, Negrete-Pulido O, Manzo-Pérez G, Vanzzini-Guerrero M. Pieloplastia retroperitoneoscópica. Experiencia en el Hospital Regional de Alta Especialidad del Bajío, León, Guanajuato, México. Rev Mex Urol 2014;74(4):204-7.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com