Laparoskopik piyeloplasti: Hangi yaklaşım? Tek merkez deneyimi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, kliniğimizde primer üreteropelvik bileşke darlığı nedeniyle laparoskopik transperitoneal piyeloplasti (LTPP) ve laparoskopik retroperitoneal piyeloplasti (LRPP) laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty (LRPP) operasyonu yapılan 112 hastanın verilerini geriye operations at our clinic due to primary ureteropeldönük incelemek ve deneyimimizi sunmaktır. Materyal ve Metod: Ocak 2007 ile Ocak 2015 tarihleri arasında primer üreteropelvik bileşke who had standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty between darlığı tanısı ile standart laparoskopik piyeloplasti January 2007 and January 2015 with a primary UPJ operasyonu yapılan hastaların verileri incelendi. obstruction were examined. Comparative data from Transperitoneal ve retroperitoneal laparoskopik transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic yaklaşım verileri karşılaştırılmalı istatistiksel olarak analiz edildi.Bulgular: Hastaların (74 hasta transperitoneal, 38 hasta retroperitoneal) demografik ve transperitoneal, 38 patients with retroperitoneal klinik özelliklerine bakıldığında iki grup arasınsurgery), there were no significant differences beda herhangi bir anlamlı farklılık yoktu. Ortalama operasyon süresi transperitoneal yaklaşımda 149.52 minutes in the transperitoneal approach and 149.52 dk, retroperitoneal yaklaşımda ise 187,76 187.76 minutes in the retroperitoneal approach. Indk idi. İntrakorporeal sütürasyon transperitoneal yaklaşımda ortalama 66.4 dk, retroperitoneal in the transperitoneal approach and 84.21 minutes yaklaşımda ise 84.21 dk idi. Postoperatif 1. ve 2. in the retroperitoneal approach. The visual anagünde değerlendirilen visuel analog skoru (VAS) , analjezik gereksinimi, hastanede kalış süresi LTPP yapılan grupta LRPP yapılan gruba oranla yüksek bulundu. Hiçbir hastada Clavien 4-5 derece komplikasyon görülmedi. Her iki grupta da 1 hastada One patient in each group had to undergo converoperasyon açığa geçilerek tamamlandı. sion to open surgery.Sonuç: Transperitoneal yaklaşım cerrah açısından daha geniş çalışma alanı, daha kolay ve kısa sürede intrakorporeal sütürasyon, aberran damar varlığında daha kolay kontrol sağlaması, kısa operasyon süresi ile retroperitoneal yaklaşıma göre daha avantajlı olarak görüldü. Retroperitoneal yaklaşım ise gastrointestinal sistem bulguları, postoperatif ağrı ve kısa hastanede kalış süresi bakımından transperitoneal yaklaşıma üstün bulundu. Uzun dönem takiplerde her iki grupta da yüksek başarı oranları sağlandı

Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Which approach? Single center experience

Objective: The aim of this study is to retrospectively examine the data of 112 patients who had laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty (LTPP) or laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty (LRPP) operations at our clinic due to primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Material and Methods: The data from patients who had standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty between January 2007 and January 2015 with a primary UPJ obstruction were examined. Comparative data from transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic approaches were statistically analyzed. Results: Given the demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients (74 patients with transperitoneal, 38 patients with retroperitoneal surgery), there were no significant differences between the two groups. Mean operation duration was 149.52 minutes in the transperitoneal approach and 187.76 minutes in the retroperitoneal approach. Intracorporeal suturing was 66.4 minutes on average in the transperitoneal approach and 84.21 minutes in the retroperitoneal approach. The visual analogue scores, which were evaluated on postoperative days 1 and 2, the need for analgesics, and the length of stay in hospital were found to be higher in the group with LTPP compared to the LRPP group. One patient in each group had to undergo conversion to open surgery Conclusion: The transperitoneal approach was found to be more advantageous than the retroperitoneal approach due to larger working area for the surgeon, easier and quicker intracorporeal suturing, easier control in the presence of aberrant blood vessels. On the other hand, the retroperitoneal approach was found to be superior to the transperitoneal approach with respect to gastrointestinal system findings, postoperative pain and shortness of the hospital stay duration. High rates of success were achieved in both groups in long-term follow-ups.

Kaynakça

1. O'Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S, et al. The long-term results of Anderson Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int 2001;87:287- 9.

2. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993;150:1795- 1799.

3. Janetschek G, Peschel R, Altarac S, et al. Laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.Urology 1996;47:311-316.

4. Singh V, Sinha RJ, Gupta DK et al. Prospective randomized comparison between transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty and retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction JSLS 2014;18.

5. Shoma AM, El Nahas AR, Bazeed MA. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. A prospective randomized comparison between the transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneoscopy. J Urol 2007;178:2020-4.

6. Rassweiler JJ, Teber D, Frede T. Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. World J Urol 2008;26:539 -547.

7. Devenport K, Minervini A, Timoney FX Jr. Our experience with retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2005; 48:973-977.

8. Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ong AM, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. BJU Int 2005;95:102- 105.

9. Adeyoju AB, Hrouda D, Gill IS. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first decade. BJU Int 2004;94:264 -267.

10. Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Soper NJ, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial case report. J Urol 1991;146:278-82.

11. Bryant RJ, Craig E, Oakley N. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the retroperitoneal approach is suitable for establishing a de novo practice. J Postgrad Med 2008;54:263-267.

12. Moon DA, El-Shazly MA, Chang CM, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: evolution of a new gold standard. Urology 2006;67:932-936.

13. Hemal AK, Goel R, Goel A. Cost effective laparoscopic pyeloplasty: single center experience. Int J Urol 2003;10:563-8.

14. Soulie M, Salomon L, Patard J-J et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a multicenter study of 55 procedures. J. Urol 2001; 166: 48-50.

15. Wu Y, Dong Q, Han P, et al. Meta-analysis of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approaches of laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012;22:658-62.

16. Canon SJ, Jayanthi VR, Lowe GJ. Which is better-- retroperitoneoscopic or laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children? J Urol 2007;178:1791-1795.

17. Zhu H, Shen C, Li X, et al. Laparo-scopic pyeloplasty: a comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach during the learning curve. Urol Int 2013;90:130-5.

18. Hafron J, Kaouk JH. Technical advances in urological laparoscopic surgery. Expert Rev Med Devices 2008;5: 145- 151.

19. Cestari A,  Buffi NM,  Lista G, et al. Retroperito 20. Zeltser IS, Liu JB, Bagley DH. The incidence of crossing vessels in patients with normal ureteropelvic junction examined with endoluminal ultrasound. J Urol 2004;172:2304-7.

21. Rehman J, Landman J, Sundaram C, et al. Missed anterior crossing vessels during open retroperitoneal pyeloplasty: laparoscopic transperitoneal discovery and repair. J. Urol 2001; 166: 593-6.

22. Husmann DA, Milliner DS, Segura JW. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction with a simultaneous renal calculus: long term followup. J Urol 1995;153:1399 -1402.

23. Arumainayagam N, Minervini A, Davenport K, et al. Antegrade versus retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2008;22:671-4.

24. Eden CG, Cahill D, Allen JD. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: 50 consecutive cases. BJU Int 2001;88:526-31.

25. Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol 2002;167:1253-6.

26. Gargouri MM, Nouira Y, Kallel Y, et al. The long-term results of laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty in adults. Arab J Urol 2013 ;11:411-4.

27. A. Castillo, W. Cabrera, E. Aleman, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Technique and results in 80 consecutive patients. Actas Urol Esp 2014;38:103-108.

Kaynak Göster

Yeni Üroloji Dergisi
  • ISSN: 1305-2489
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 3 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2005

845173

Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

İndirekt inguinal herni kesesine uzanan danbıl şeklinde mesane divertikülü

Abdurrahim DUSAK, BİRCAN ALAN, Mehmet Mazhar UTANĞAÇ, Aslan BİLİCİ

Aynı klinikte yapılan 200 perkütan nefrolitotomi operasyonunu uygulayan daha önce perkütan eğitimi almış ve almamış iki farklı cerrahın iki dönem sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi

M. Serdar BUĞDAY, EYÜP VELİ KÜÇÜK, Uğur BOYLU

Distal üreter taşı tedavisinde tamsulosin ve silodosin tedavilerinin karşılaştırılması

EYÜP VELİ KÜÇÜK, Abdurrahman İNKAYA, Ahmet TAHRA, Ahmet BİNDAYI, Fikret Fatih ÖNOL

Kontrastsız bilgisayarlı tomografi yardımı ile hesaplanan hounsfield ünit değerlerinin perkütan nefrolitotomi sonuçlarına etkisi

Serkan YARIMOĞLU, İbrahim Halil BOZKURT, Tarık YONGUÇ, Özgü AYDOĞDU, Salih POLAT, Tansu DEĞİRMENCİ

Hematocolpos associated with imperforate hymen mimicking glob vesicale

Faruk ÖZGÖR, Abdülmüttalip ŞİMŞEK, Murat ŞAHAN, Mehmet Fatih AKBULUT, Bahar YÜKSEL, Zafer Gökhan GÜRBÜZ

Enurezisli erişkin hastalarda biofeedback tedavisinin etkinliği

EYÜP BURAK SANCAK, Alpaslan AKBAŞ, Cabir ALAN, AHMET REŞİT ERSAY

Paraplejik erkek hastada dev kazanılmış üretral divertikül ve rekürren ürolityazis: Olgu sunumu ve literatürün incelenmesi

Selçuk SARIKAYA, Çağrı ŞENOCAK, Ersin ATABEY, Murat YILDIRIM, Ömer Faruk BOZKURT

Erkek infertilitesine genetik yaklaşım

Özgür BALASAR, Mehmet BALASAR, Recai GÜRBÜZ

Laparoskopik piyeloplasti: Hangi yaklaşım? Tek merkez deneyimi

Selçuk ŞAHİN, Kamil Gökhan ŞEKER, Mustafa Gürkan YENİCE, Nevzat Can ŞENER, Volkan TUĞCU

Intrascrotal extratesticular liposarcoma: A rare case report

FATİH AKDEMİR, Mustafa ALDEMİR, Kemal ENER, EMRAH OKULU, Önder KAYIGİL, Huban Sibel ORHUN