Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children younger than 2 years

被引:52
作者
Cascio, S.
Tien, A.
Chee, W.
Tan, H. L.
机构
[1] Womens & Childrens Hosp, Dept Pediat Surg, Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia
[2] Univ Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia
关键词
laparoscopy; urologic surgical procedures; hidney pelvis; ureteral obstruction;
D O I
10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.145
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 [临床医学]; 100201 [内科学];
摘要
Purpose: Since the first laparoscopic pyeloplasty was described in a child in 1995, there have been several reports of pyeloplasty in older children. However, to date there have been few reports of laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants and toddlers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children younger than 2 years. Materials and Methods: All laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasties performed in children younger than 2 years were retrospectively reviewed. The diagnosis of ureteropelvic junction obstruction was confirmed on renal sonography and diuretic renogram. Laparoscopic pyeloplasties were performed via a transperitoneal route as originally described, with key modifications. All children were investigated with postoperative diuretic renogram and renal ultrasonography. Results: A total of 38 children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction underwent laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty between January 2001 and December 2005. Of these patients 11(7 males and 4 females) were younger than 2 years at surgery (median 1.4, range 2 to 22 months) and 1 had bilateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction, for a total of 12 primary repairs. However, 2 patients (17%) required redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty, for a total of 14 laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasties in this age group. Operative time ranged from 70 to 140 minutes (mean 100) and median hospital stay was 2 days. Followup studies showed normal drainage in all patients except 1, who after redo pyeloplasty exhibited significantly improved but still prolonged drainage. Conclusions: This study suggests that laparoscopic pyeloplasty can now be performed in young children with good results.
引用
收藏
页码:335 / 338
页数:4
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]
Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children [J].
Atug, F ;
Woods, M ;
Burgess, SV ;
Castle, EP ;
Thomas, R .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2005, 174 (04) :1440-1442
[2]
Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children [J].
Bonnard, A ;
Fouquet, V ;
Carricaburu, E ;
Aigrain, Y ;
El-Ghoneimi, A .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2005, 173 (05) :1710-1713
[3]
Comparison of dismembered and nondismembered Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient [J].
Casale, P ;
Grady, RW ;
Joyner, BD ;
Zeltser, IS ;
Figueroa, TE ;
Mitchell, ME .
JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2004, 18 (09) :875-878
[4]
Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty by a retroperitoneal approach in children [J].
El-Ghoneimi, A ;
Farhat, W ;
Bolduc, S ;
Bagli, D ;
McLorie, G ;
Aigrain, Y ;
Khoury, A .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2003, 92 (01) :104-108
[5]
Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status [J].
Inagaki, T ;
Rha, KH ;
Ong, AM ;
Kavoussi, LR ;
Jarrett, TW .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2005, 95 :102-105
[6]
Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction [J].
Klingler, HC ;
Remzi, M ;
Janetschek, G ;
Kratzik, C ;
Marberger, MJ .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2003, 44 (03) :340-345
[7]
Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the infant younger than 6 months - Is it technically possible? [J].
Kutikov, A ;
Resnick, M ;
Casale, P .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2006, 175 (04) :1477-1479
[8]
Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: Comparison with a cohort of open surgery [J].
Lee, RS ;
Retik, AB ;
Borer, JG ;
Peters, CA .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2006, 175 (02) :683-687
[9]
Is antegrade stenting superior to retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty? [J].
Mandhani, A ;
Goel, S ;
Bhandari, M .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2004, 171 (04) :1440-1442
[10]
Laparoscopic transabdominal pyeloplasty in children is feasible irrespective of age [J].
Metzelder, ML ;
Schier, F ;
Petersen, C ;
Truss, M ;
Ure, BM .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2006, 175 (02) :688-691