Comparison of dismembered and nondismembered Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient

被引:56
作者
Casale, P
Grady, RW
Joyner, BD
Zeltser, IS
Figueroa, TE
Mitchell, ME
机构
[1] Univ Washington, Seattle Childrens Hosp, Seattle, WA 98105 USA
[2] Thomas Jefferson Univ, AI duPont Hosp Children, Wilmington, DE USA
关键词
D O I
10.1089/end.2004.18.875
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
Background and Purpose: Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty is an acceptable option for ureteropelvic junction (UPS) obstruction in the pediatric population. We compared our results with dismembered and nondismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Patients and Methods: A series of 26 children between the ages of 8 months and 15 years (mean age 5 years) underwent transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for an obstruction not caused by a crossing vessel. Nineteen had an Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty (AH), while the remaining seven had a nondismembered pyeloplasty in a Heineke-Mikulicz fashion (HM). The outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay, and resolution of obstruction by ultrasonography and diuretic radionuclide imaging. Results: The mean operative time was 3.1 hours and 2.5 hours for AH and HM, respectively. No difference in hospital stay was noted, with a mean of 3 days. The stent was removed 6 weeks later. Four of the seven patients having nondismembered procedures presented with acute flank pain within 3 days of stent removal. The AH pyeloplasty produced a 94% rate of resolution of UPJ obstruction, while the HM patients did poorly, with a success rate of only 43% (P = 0.002; Fisher's exact test). Conclusions: We believe that for UPJ obstructions in children not involving a crossing vessel, laparoscopic dismembered (AH) pyeloplasty may be considered a safe alternative.
引用
收藏
页码:875 / 878
页数:4
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]   Pelviureteric obstruction in children: Conventional pyeloplasty is superior to endo-urology [J].
Ahmed, S ;
Crankson, S ;
Sripathi, V .
AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1998, 68 (09) :641-642
[2]  
DORAISWAMY NV, 1993, BRIT J UROL, V71, P152
[3]   Assessment of alternative tissue approximation techniques for laparoscopy [J].
Eden, CG ;
Coptcoat, MJ .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1996, 78 (02) :234-242
[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]  
Janetschek G, 1996, UROLOGE A, V35, P202
[6]   Laparoscopic dismembered tubularized flap pyeloplasty: A novel technique [J].
Kaouk, JH ;
Kuang, W ;
Gill, IS .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2002, 167 (01) :229-231
[7]   LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY [J].
KAVOUSSI, LR ;
PETERS, CA .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1993, 150 (06) :1891-1894
[8]   RESULTS OF 212 CONSECUTIVE ENDOPYELOTOMIES - AN 8-YEAR FOLLOW-UP [J].
MOTOLA, JA ;
BADLANI, GH ;
SMITH, AD .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1993, 149 (03) :453-456
[9]   LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY FOR SECONDARY URETEROPELVIC JUNCTION OBSTRUCTION - PRELIMINARY EXPERIENCE [J].
NAKADA, SY ;
MCDOUGALL, EM ;
CLAYMAN, RV .
UROLOGY, 1995, 46 (02) :257-260
[10]  
NOTELY RG, 1973, BR J UROL, V45, P464