Journal of endourology · 2016
Definitive Management of Failure After Pyeloplasty.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Swearingen Ryan, Ambani Sapan, Faerber Gary J, Bloom David A, Wolf J Stuart
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Failure after pyeloplasty is difficult to manage. We report our experience managing pyeloplasty failures.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the case log of a single surgeon, from August 1996 to August 2014, to identify all patients undergoing a surgical procedure after failed pyeloplasty. We excluded patients without follow-up exceeding 1 year from initial postpyeloplasty procedure. Failure was defined as a need for additional definitive intervention.
RESULTS: Of 247 laparoscopic pyeloplasties, 68 endopyelotomies and 305 simple laparoscopic nephrectomies reviewed, 41 were performed after previous pyeloplasty and had sufficient follow-up. Laparoscopic nephrectomy was performed in nine patients. All three secondary laparoscopic pyeloplasties were successful. Of 29 secondary endopyelotomies, 10 (34%) were successful. Of the 19 failures after secondary endopyelotomy, 12 patients had tertiary pyeloplasty (5 laparoscopic and 7 open surgical), 5 (26%) underwent tertiary endopyelotomy, and 2 (11%) required nephrectomy. Our overall endopyelotomy success rate was 38% (13/34) vs 100% (11/11) for secondary or tertiary pyeloplasty (4 patients lost to follow-up). Median time to failure was 5 months for endopyelotomy. Median follow-up for patients free from intervention was 40.2 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Secondary pyeloplasty (including both laparoscopic and open surgical approach) is more than twice as successful as endopyelotomy after failed pyeloplasty. Secondary pyeloplasty is an excellent alternative to endopyelotomy in select patients with failure after initial pyeloplasty.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the case log of a single surgeon, from August 1996 to August 2014, to identify all patients undergoing a surgical procedure after failed pyeloplasty. We excluded patients without follow-up exceeding 1 year from initial postpyeloplasty procedure. Failure was defined as a need for additional definitive intervention.
RESULTS: Of 247 laparoscopic pyeloplasties, 68 endopyelotomies and 305 simple laparoscopic nephrectomies reviewed, 41 were performed after previous pyeloplasty and had sufficient follow-up. Laparoscopic nephrectomy was performed in nine patients. All three secondary laparoscopic pyeloplasties were successful. Of 29 secondary endopyelotomies, 10 (34%) were successful. Of the 19 failures after secondary endopyelotomy, 12 patients had tertiary pyeloplasty (5 laparoscopic and 7 open surgical), 5 (26%) underwent tertiary endopyelotomy, and 2 (11%) required nephrectomy. Our overall endopyelotomy success rate was 38% (13/34) vs 100% (11/11) for secondary or tertiary pyeloplasty (4 patients lost to follow-up). Median time to failure was 5 months for endopyelotomy. Median follow-up for patients free from intervention was 40.2 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Secondary pyeloplasty (including both laparoscopic and open surgical approach) is more than twice as successful as endopyelotomy after failed pyeloplasty. Secondary pyeloplasty is an excellent alternative to endopyelotomy in select patients with failure after initial pyeloplasty.