Laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy for complicated upper urinary tract obstruction: mid-term follow-up
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
14
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2014
Editora
SPRINGER
Indexadores
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Autor de Grupo de pesquisa
Editores
Coordenadores
Organizadores
Citação
INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, v.46, n.5, p.865-869, 2014
Resumo
To report on the largest series of laparoscopic ureterocalicostomies done for complicated upper urinary obstruction. We retrospectively reviewed the data from 6 transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterocalicostomies performed in our institution from January 2008 to January 2012. Symptomatic complicated upper urinary obstruction was the main reason for all the procedures. The recorded data included age, gender, clinical presentation, duration of symptoms, laterality, mean operative time, hospital stay, complications and clinical and functional outcomes. The median patient age was 20.1 (2-44) years, and all patients were females. Patients underwent laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy due to previous failed procedures (3 patients), anatomic abnormalities (2 patients) and a severe upper ureteral stenosis (1 patient). The median operative time was 215 (180-270) min. There were no major complications. There were no conversions to open surgery. In a median follow-up of 30 (8-56) months, all patients presented with clinical and radiological improvement with no signs of obstruction. In all cases, the postoperative renal scintigraphy revealed a T1/2 lower than 10 min. Laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy is feasible and associated with high success rate in well-selected cases with complicated upper urinary obstructions.
Palavras-chave
Drainage, Hydronephrosis, Laparoscopy, Treatment outcome, Ureteral obstruction
Referências
- Agarwal MM, 2007, UROLOGY, V70, P590
- Arap MA, 2013, SCAND J UROL, V47, P323, DOI 10.3109/00365599.2012.740071
- Brito Artur H, 2002, Int Braz J Urol, V28, P302
- Brito AH, 2002, INT BRAZ J UROL, V28, P309
- Bruhn AM, 2010, MINERVA UROL NEFROL, V62, P305
- Cherullo EE, 2003, J UROLOGY, V169, P2360, DOI 10.1097/01.ju.0000058214.99086.37
- DUCKETT JW, 1982, J UROLOGY, V128, P98
- Gill IS, 2004, J UROLOGY, V171, P1227, DOI 10.1097/01.ju.0000114233.66534.b0
- HAWTHORNE NJ, 1976, J UROLOGY, V115, P583
- KAY R, 1988, UROL CLIN N AM, V15, P129
- Korets R, 2007, UROLOGY, V70, P366, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2007.04.024
- Kumar S, 2009, J LAPAROENDOSC ADV S, V19, P521, DOI 10.1089/lap.2008.0397
- Matlaga BR, 2005, UROLOGY, V65, P42, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2004.08.024
- MESROBIAN HGJ, 1989, J UROLOGY, V142, P1285
- NEUWIRT K, 1948, Urol Cutaneous Rev, V52, P351
- Osman T, 2011, UROLOGY, V78, P202, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2011.01.044
- Park J, 2008, INT J UROL, V15, P490, DOI 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.02035.x
- Patel T, 2011, J ENDOUROL, V25, P587, DOI 10.1089/end.2010.0026
- Rohrmann D, 1997, J UROLOGY, V158, P1257, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64446-X
- Sandhu GS, 2013, SURG ONCOL CLIN N AM, V22, P125, DOI 10.1016/j.soc.2012.08.001
- Schimpf MO, 2009, J ENDOUROL, V23, P293, DOI 10.1089/end.2008.0165
- SELLI C, 1992, UROL INT, V48, P274
- Sundaram CP, 2003, J UROLOGY, V169, P2037, DOI 10.1097/01.ju.0000067180.78134.da