The comparative study between conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction
Gao Xu1, Wang Haifeng1, Lu Xin1, Sun Yinghao1
1Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
Abstract：Objective:To compare conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty with robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in managing the ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).Methods:Between July 2012 and March 2012, we involved 7 UPJO patients in this study. 5 were performed conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty, and 2 were performed robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. All cases were performed by the surgeon who has extensive experience in conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty.Results:All the 7 operations were performed successfully. The average suturing time for robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty was 19 (15-23) min, and 45 (39-60) min for conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty respectively.The average blood loss in these two groups were 50 (30-70)ml compared 150 (100-200) ml; and the average extubation times were 2 days compared 4 days.Conclusions:Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty could reduce the suturing time and blood loss and achieves more accurate suture by more flexible operation.
高旭, 王海峰, 鲁欣, 孙颖浩. 机器人辅助的腹腔镜与普通腹腔镜下UPJ成型的比较研究[J]. 微创泌尿外科杂志, 2012, 1(1): 70-72.
Gao Xu, Wang Haifeng, Lu Xin, Sun Yinghao. The comparative study between conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE UROLOGY, 2012, 1(1): 70-72.
[1]Moon DA, El-Shazly MA, Chang CM, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: evolution of a new gold standard. Urology, 2006, 67(5): 932-936. [2]Symons SJ, Bhirud PS, Jain V, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: our new gold standard. J Endourol, 2009,23(3): 463-467. [3]Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, et al. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology, 2002, 60(3): 509-513. [4]Kavoussi LR, Peters CA. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol, 1993, 150(6): 1891-1894. [5]Bird VG, Leveillee RJ, Eldefrawy A, et al. Comparison of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single-center study. Urology, 2011, 77(3): 730-734. [6]Binder J, Jones J, Bentas W, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopy in urology. Radical prostatectomy and reconstructive retroperitoneal interventions. Urologe A, 2002, 41(2): 144-149. [7]Boylu U, Oommen M, Lee BR, et al. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction secondary to crossing vessels-to transpose or not? The robotic experience. J Urol, 2009, 181(4): 1751-1755. [8]Ferhi K, Roupret M, Rode J, et al. Promising functional outcomes obtained with robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a single-center experience. J Endourol, 2009, 23(6): 959-963. [9]Kaouk JH, Hafron J, Parekattil S, et al. Is retroperitoneal approach feasible for robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: initial experience and long-term results. J Endourol, 2008, 22(9): 2153-2159. [10]Tobis S, Venigalla S, Balakumaran K, et al. Analysis of a large single-center experience with robot-assisted pyeloplasty.Int J Urol, 2012,doi:10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03119.x.
