Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction

GÜMÜŞ, Eyüp; ÖNOL, Fikret Fatih; Boylu, Ugur; Basatac, Cem

Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction

Cem BAŞATAÇ, (Sağlık Bakanlığı, Ümraniye Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Üroloji Kliniği, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Uğur BOYLU, (Sağlık Bakanlığı, Ümraniye Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Üroloji Kliniği, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Fikret Fatih ÖNOL, (Sağlık Bakanlığı, Ümraniye Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Üroloji Kliniği, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Eyüp GÜMÜŞ (Sağlık Bakanlığı, Ümraniye Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Üroloji Kliniği, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology

2 0

Yıl: 2014 Cilt: 40 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 24 - 30 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction

Öz:

Objective: To compare the surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic dismem-bered pyeloplasty for the treatment of patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).Material and methods: Between 2007 and 2012, a total of 56 patients underwent conventional open (Group1; n=25), laparoscopic (Group 2; n=16), and robotic (Group 3; n=15) dismembered pyeloplasty operations.Preoperative evaluation was performed using urinalysis, urine culture, blood biochemistry, urinary ultra-sound, intravenous pyelogram (IVP) (optional) and Mercaptoacetyltriglycine (MAG-3) renal scan. Themean operation time, estimated blood loss, drain removal time, narcotic analgesic requirements, length ofhospital stay and functional outcomes were compared among groups. Statistical analyses were performedusing Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) v. 20 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) software, and sta-tistically signifcant differences were determined using a p value <0.05.Results: The mean age of the patients was 30 years in Group 1, 34.3 years in Group 2 and 32.9 years inGroup 3. The mean operation time was 127, 130 and 114 min (p=0.32), and the estimated blood loss was105, 31 and 28 mL, respectively (p=0.001). The drain was removed after 4.36 (±1.3), 2.33 (±0.6) and 1.8(±0.6) days after surgery (p<0.001), and the mean hospital stay was 4.14 (±1.8), 2.8 (±0.75) and 2 (±1) days,respectively (p<0.001). Narcotic analgesic requirement was signifcantly higher in Group 1 compared withGroups 2 and 3 (p=0.02). The radiographic and symptomatic success rates were 96% in Group 1, 93.75% inGroup 2 and 93.3% in Group 3.Conclusion: Laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty are feasible, effective, reliable and minimally invasivetreatment approaches for the treatment of UPJO as compared with open dismembered pyeloplasty.

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Üroloji ve Nefroloji

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Poulakis V, Witzsch U, Schultheiss D, Rathert P, Becht E. History of ure- teropelvic junction obstruction repair (pyeloplasty). From Trendelenburg (1886) to the present. Urologe A 2004;43:1544-59. [CrossRef]
2. Patel V. Robot-asisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 2005;66:45-9. [CrossRef]
3. Penn HA, Gatti JM, Hoestje SM, DeMarco RT, Snyder CL, Murphy JP. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children: preliminary report of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 2010;184:690-5. [CrossRef]
4. Srivastava A, Singh P, Maheshwari R, Ansari MS, Dubey D, Kapoor R, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a versatile alternative to open pyeloplasty. Urol Int 2009;83:420-4. [CrossRef]
5. Symons JS, Palit V, Bi yani CS, Cartledge JJ, Browning AJ, Joyce AD. Minimally invasive surgical options for ureteropelvic junc- tion obstruction: A significant step in the right direction. Indian J Urol 2009;25:27-33. [CrossRef]
6. Yanke BV, Lallas CD, Pagnani C, Bagley DH. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: technical considerations and outcomes. J Endourol 2008;22:1291-6. [CrossRef]
7. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical com- plications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-13. [CrossRef]
8. Danuser H, Ackermann DK, Böhlen D, Studer UE. Endopyelotomy for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: risk factors deter- mine the success rate. J Urol 1998;159:56-61. [CrossRef]
9. Manikandan R, Saad A, Bhatt RI, Neilson D. Minimally invasive surgery for pelviureteral junction obstruction in adults: A critical review of the options. Urology 2005;65:422-32. [CrossRef]
10. Knudsen BE, Cook AJ, Watterson JD, Beiko DT, Nott L, Razvi H, et al. Percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy: Long-term results from one institution. Urology 2004;63:230-4. [CrossRef]
11. Patel V. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty for the treatment of uretero- pelvic junction obstruction. Indian J Urol 2005; 21: 97-101. [CrossRef]
12. Soulié M, Salomon L, Patard JJ, Mouly P, Manunta A, Antiphon P, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a multicenter study of 55 procedures. J Urol 2001;166:48-50. [CrossRef]
13. Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ong AM, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. BJU Int 2005;95:102-5. [CrossRef]
14. Boylu U, Basatac C, Turan T, Onol FF, Gumus E. Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive and open pyeloplasty. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012;22:968-71. [CrossRef]
15. Eden CG, Cahill D, Allen JD. Laparoscopic dismembered pyelo- plasty: 50 consecutive cases. Br J Urol 2001;88:526-31. [CrossRef]
16. Canes D, Berger A, Gettman MT, Desai MM. Minimally invasive approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urol Clin North Am 2008;35:425-39. [CrossRef]
17. Jarrett TW,Chan DY, Charambura TC, Fugita O, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol 2002;167:1253-6. [CrossRef]
18. Sung GT, Gill IS, Hsu TH. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyelo- plasty: a pilot study. Urology 1999;53:1099-103. [CrossRef]
19. Gettman MT, Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G. Laparoscopic pyelo- plasty: comparison of procedures performed with the da Vinci robotic system versus Standard techniques. Eur Urol 2002;42:453-8. [CrossRef]
20. Bansal P, Gupta A, Mongha R, Narayan S, Das RK, Bera M, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: Comparison of Two Surgical Approaches - A Single Center Experience. Indian J Surg 2011;73:264-7. [CrossRef]
21. Braga LH, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative com- plications, and success rate. Eur Urol 2009;56:848-57. [CrossRef]
22. Link RE, Bhayani SB, Kavoussi LR. A prospective comparison of robot- ic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg 2006;243:486-91. [CrossRef]
23. Gupta NP, Nayyar R, Hemal AK, Mukherjee S, Kumar R, Dogra PN. Outcome analysis of robotic pyeloplasty: a large single centre experience. BJU Int 2010;105:980-3. [CrossRef]
24. Lasmar MT, Junior HA, Vengjer A, Guerra FA, Souza EA, Rocha LM. Transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Brazilian initial experience with 55 cases. Int Braz J Urol 2010;36:678-84. [CrossRef]
25. Bird VG, Leveillee RJ, Eldefrawy A, Bracho J, Aziz MS. Comparison of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single-center study. Urology 2011;77:730-4. [CrossRef]
26. Lucas SM, Sundaram CP, Wolf JS, Leveillee RY, Bird VG, Aziz M, et al. Factors that ımpact the outcome of minimally ınvasive pyelo - plasty: results of the Multi-Institutional Laparoscopic and Robotic Pyeloplasty Collaborative Group. J Urol 2012;187:522-7. [CrossRef]
27. Seideman CA, Sleeper JP, Lotan Y. Cost comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2012;26:1044-8. [CrossRef]
28. Etafy M, Pick D, Said S, Hsueh T, Kerbl D, Mucksavage P, et al. Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experi- ence. J Urol 2011;185:2196-200. [CrossRef]
29. Başataç C, Boylu U, Turgay T, Küçük EV, Gümüş E. Transperitoneal robotic pyeloplasty: Our initial experiences. Turkish Journal of Urology 2011;37:118-22. [CrossRef]
30. Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, Palese MA, Berger AD, Thomas R, et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institu- tional experience. J Urol 2008;180:1391-6. [CrossRef]
31. Mandhani A, Kumar D, Kumar A, Kapoor R, Dubey D, Srivastava A, et al. Safety profile and complications of transperitoneal lapa- roscopic pyeloplasty: a critical analysis. J Endourol 2005;19:797- 802. [CrossRef]
32. Moon DA, El-Shazly MA, Chang CM, Gianduzzo TR, Eden CG. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Evolution of a new gold standart. Urology 2006;67:932-6. [CrossRef]
33. Rassweiler JJ, Teber D, Frede T. Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. World J Urol 2008;26:539-47. [CrossRef]

APA	Basatac C, Boylu U, ÖNOL F, GÜMÜŞ E (2014). Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. , 24 - 30.
Chicago	Basatac Cem,Boylu Ugur,ÖNOL Fikret Fatih,GÜMÜŞ Eyüp Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. (2014): 24 - 30.
MLA	Basatac Cem,Boylu Ugur,ÖNOL Fikret Fatih,GÜMÜŞ Eyüp Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. , 2014, ss.24 - 30.
AMA	Basatac C,Boylu U,ÖNOL F,GÜMÜŞ E Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. . 2014; 24 - 30.
Vancouver	Basatac C,Boylu U,ÖNOL F,GÜMÜŞ E Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. . 2014; 24 - 30.
IEEE	Basatac C,Boylu U,ÖNOL F,GÜMÜŞ E "Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction." , ss.24 - 30, 2014.
ISNAD	Basatac, Cem vd. "Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction". (2014), 24-30.

APA	Basatac C, Boylu U, ÖNOL F, GÜMÜŞ E (2014). Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, 40(1), 24 - 30.
Chicago	Basatac Cem,Boylu Ugur,ÖNOL Fikret Fatih,GÜMÜŞ Eyüp Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology 40, no.1 (2014): 24 - 30.
MLA	Basatac Cem,Boylu Ugur,ÖNOL Fikret Fatih,GÜMÜŞ Eyüp Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, vol.40, no.1, 2014, ss.24 - 30.
AMA	Basatac C,Boylu U,ÖNOL F,GÜMÜŞ E Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology. 2014; 40(1): 24 - 30.
Vancouver	Basatac C,Boylu U,ÖNOL F,GÜMÜŞ E Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology. 2014; 40(1): 24 - 30.
IEEE	Basatac C,Boylu U,ÖNOL F,GÜMÜŞ E "Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction." Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, 40, ss.24 - 30, 2014.
ISNAD	Basatac, Cem vd. "Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction". Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology 40/1 (2014), 24-30.