JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons · 2014
Robotic laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chammas Mario F, Mitre Anuar I, Hubert Nicolas, Egrot Christophe, Hubert Jacques
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of complex ureteropelvic junction obstruction cases submitted to robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
METHODS: The records of 131 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty were reviewed. Of this initial population of cases, 17 were considered complex, consisting of either atypical anatomy (horseshoe kidneys in 3 patients) or previous ureteropelvic junction obstruction management (14 patients). The patients were divided into 2 groups: primary pyeloplasty (group 1) and complex cases (group 2).
RESULTS: The mean operative time was 117.3 ± 33.5 minutes in group 1 and 153.5 ± 31.1 minutes in group 2 (P = .002). The median hospital stay was 5.19 ± 1.66 days in group 1 and 5.90 ± 2.33 days in group 2 (P = .326). The surgical findings included 53 crossing vessels in group 1 and 5 in group 2. One patient in group 1 required conversion to open surgery because of technical difficulties. One patient in group 2, with a history of hemorrhagic rectocolitis, presented with peritonitis postoperatively due to a small colonic injury. A secondary procedure was performed after the patient had an uneventful recovery. At 3 months, significant improvement (clinical and radiologic) was present in 93% of cases in group 1 and 88.2% in group 2. At 1 year, all patients in group 2 showed satisfactory results. At a late follow-up visit, 1 patient in group 1 presented with a recurrent obstruction.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic pyeloplasty appear to be feasible and effective, showing a consistent success rate even in complex situations. Particular care should be observed during the colon dissection in patients with previous colonic pathology.
METHODS: The records of 131 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty were reviewed. Of this initial population of cases, 17 were considered complex, consisting of either atypical anatomy (horseshoe kidneys in 3 patients) or previous ureteropelvic junction obstruction management (14 patients). The patients were divided into 2 groups: primary pyeloplasty (group 1) and complex cases (group 2).
RESULTS: The mean operative time was 117.3 ± 33.5 minutes in group 1 and 153.5 ± 31.1 minutes in group 2 (P = .002). The median hospital stay was 5.19 ± 1.66 days in group 1 and 5.90 ± 2.33 days in group 2 (P = .326). The surgical findings included 53 crossing vessels in group 1 and 5 in group 2. One patient in group 1 required conversion to open surgery because of technical difficulties. One patient in group 2, with a history of hemorrhagic rectocolitis, presented with peritonitis postoperatively due to a small colonic injury. A secondary procedure was performed after the patient had an uneventful recovery. At 3 months, significant improvement (clinical and radiologic) was present in 93% of cases in group 1 and 88.2% in group 2. At 1 year, all patients in group 2 showed satisfactory results. At a late follow-up visit, 1 patient in group 1 presented with a recurrent obstruction.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic pyeloplasty appear to be feasible and effective, showing a consistent success rate even in complex situations. Particular care should be observed during the colon dissection in patients with previous colonic pathology.