World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 2 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2009 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Laparoscopic Dismembered Pyeloplasty: Our Experience in 15 Cases

Piyush Singhania, Mukund G Andankar, Hemant R Pathak

Citation Information : Singhania P, Andankar MG, Pathak HR. Laparoscopic Dismembered Pyeloplasty: Our Experience in 15 Cases. World J Lap Surg 2009; 2 (2):6-11.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10007-1016

Published Online: 01-08-2009

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2009; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Objectives

To assess the feasibility and effectiveness of transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty has been shown to have a success rate comparable to that of the open surgical approach. We report the results of our first 15 cases of transperitoneal dismembered pyeloplasty.

Patients and methods

From August 2006 to September 2007, 15 patients underwent laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. All patients underwent dismembered pyeloplasty. All patients were followed with diuretic renography (DTPA renal scan) at 3 months and 1year of follow-up and intravenous urography at 1 year follow-up to assess the success of the surgery.

Results

Fourteen of the fifteen procedures were successfully completed. The procedure was converted to open surgery in one patient who had history of recurrent UTI and friable tissues which were not holding the sutures. Crossing vessels were identified in 7 out of 15 patients(46.7%) which required transposition of the ureter and pelvis before anastomosis. Four patients had associated calculus disease and in 3 out of 4 patients the calculus was removed. Average operating time was 3.75 hours (range 3 to 5 hours) and the mean blood loss was 150 ml. Mean hospital stay was 5.5 days. Mean duration of analgesic use was 5.2 days. Postoperative complications included urinary peritonitis in one patient and suture granuloma in 2 patients. 14 out of 15 patients(93.33%) showed definite improvement in renal function and drainage on radiographic evaluation.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) is a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment option that duplicates the principles and techniques of definitive open surgical repair. The success rates associated with LP are comparable to those of the gold standard, open pyeloplasty.


PDF Share
  1. Endopyelotomy: Comparison of ureteroscopic retrograde and antegrade percutaneous techniques. J Urol 148:775-83.
  2. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology 1995;46(6):791-95.
  3. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993;150:1795-99.
  4. Adebanji B Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: The first decade. BJU International 2004;94:264-67.
  5. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: A multicenter study of 55 procedures. J Urol 2001;166:48-50.
  6. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: 50 consecutive cases. BJU Int 2001;88:526-31.
  7. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: The first 100 cases. J Urol 2002;167:1253-56.
  8. CG Treatment options for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction: Implications for practice and training British Journal of Urology 1997;80:365-72.
  9. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Tips and techniques: Contemporary Urology, January 2006;1.
  10. A Comparison between Laparoscopic and Open Pyeloplasty in Patients with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction. Urology Journal 2004;1 (3).
  11. V Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children. The Journal of urology. Lippincott Williams 162(33):1045-48.
  12. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: outcome of initial 12 procedures. International Journal of Urology 2004;11:449-55.
  13. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Urol Clin North Am 2000;27:695-704.
  14. The absence of crossing vessels in association with ureteropelvic junction obstruction detected by prenatal ultrasonography. J Urol 1998;160:973-75.
  15. Long-term results and late recurrence after endoureteropyelotomy: A critical analysis of prognostic factors. J Urol 1994;151:934-37.
  16. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2003;169:2037-40.
  17. Contribution of lumboscopy to the treatment of ureteropelvic junction syndromes, based on a series of 25 cases . Progr Urol 2000;10:524-28.
  18. Laparoscopic treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 2002:60;973-78.
  19. Nephrectomy: comparative study between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus the open approach. Eur Urol 1998;33:489-96.
  20. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Initial experience in 15 cases. Urology 2000;56:45-48.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.