Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty

被引:97
作者
Patel, V [1 ]
机构
[1] Urol Ctr Alabama, Dept Minimally Invas Surg, Vestavia Hills, AL USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.urology.2005.01.053
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives. To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty has been shown to have a success rate comparable to that of the open surgical approach. However, the steep learning curve has hindered its acceptance into mainstream urologic practice. The introduction of robotic assistance provides advantages that have the potential to facilitate precise dissection and intracorporeal suturing. Methods. A total of 50 patients underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. A four-trocar technique was used. Most patients were discharged home on day 1, with stent removal at 3 weeks. Patency of the ureteropelvic junction was assessed in all patients with mercaptotriglycylglycine Lasix renograms at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, then every 6 months for I year, and then yearly. Results. Each patient underwent a successful procedure without open conversion or transfusion. The average estimated blood loss was 40 mL. The operative time averaged 122 minutes (range 60 to 330) overall. Crossing vessels were present in 30% of the patients and were preserved in all cases. The time for the anastomosis averaged 20 minutes (range 10 to 100). Intraoperatively, no complications occurred. Postoperatively, the average hospital stay was 1.1 days. The stents were removed at an average of 20 days (range 14 to 28) postoperatively. The average follow-up was 11.7 months; at the last follow-up visit, each patient was doing well. Of the 50 patients, 48 underwent one or more renograms, demonstrating stable renal function, improved drainage, and no evidence of recurrent obstruction. Conclusions. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty is a feasible technique for ureteropelvic junction reconstruction. The procedure provides a minimally invasive alternative with good short-term results.
引用
收藏
页码:45 / 49
页数:5
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
ANDERSON J C, 1949, Br J Urol, V21, P209, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410X.1949.tb10773.x
[2]   Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: Assessment of objective and subjective outcome [J].
Bauer, JJ ;
Bishoff, JT ;
Moore, RG ;
Chen, RN ;
Iverson, AJ ;
Kavoussi, LR .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1999, 162 (03) :692-695
[3]   Da Vinci robot assisted Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty:: technique and 1 year follow-up [J].
Bentas, W ;
Wolfram, M ;
Bräutigam, R ;
Probst, M ;
Beecken, WD ;
Jonas, D ;
Binder, J .
WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2003, 21 (03) :133-138
[4]   COMPARISON OF OPEN AND ENDOUROLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE OBSTRUCTED URETEROPELVIC JUNCTION [J].
BROOKS, JD ;
KAVOUSSI, LR ;
PREMINGER, GM ;
SCHUESSLER, WW ;
MOORE, RG .
UROLOGY, 1995, 46 (06) :791-795
[5]   Treatment options for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction: implications for practice and training [J].
Eden, CG .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1997, 80 (03) :365-372
[6]   Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: 50 consecutive cases [J].
Eden, CG ;
Cahill, D ;
Allen, JD .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2001, 88 (06) :526-531
[7]   A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: Initial clinical results [J].
Gettman, MT ;
Peschel, R ;
Neururer, R ;
Bartsch, G .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2002, 42 (05) :453-457
[8]  
Goldfischer ER, 1998, UROLOGY, V51, P855
[9]   Robotic pyeloplasty [J].
Jacques Hubert .
Current Urology Reports, 2003, 4 (2) :124-129
[10]   Laparoscopic pyeloplasty [J].
Janetschek, G ;
Peschel, R ;
Franscher, F .
UROLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2000, 27 (04) :695-+