Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: technique and results in 105 patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the postoperative and functional results of the laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty (LDP).

Patients and methods

Between May 2000 and April 2008, we performed in our department 105 LDP. All patients presented an ureteropelvic junction obstruction with dilatation of renal calyx system with an enlarged renal pelvis. Demographic data (age, gender), perioperative and postoperative parameters, including operating time, estimated blood loss, complications, length of hospital stay, functional outcome were collected and evaluated.

Results

The mean operative time for LDP was 150 min (range 120–180 min) and the mean estimated blood loss was negligible in all patients. The mean hospital stay was 4 days (4–8). No conversion to open surgery occurred. In the follow-up, we noted a successful rate in 96.2% of the patients.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty, if performed by expert surgeons in high-volume centres, presents results that are comparable with open surgery, with a lower surgical trauma for the patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fornara P, Doehn C, Seyfarth M, Jocham D (2000) Why is urological laparoscopy minimally invasive? Eur Urol 37:241–250

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rassweiler J, Subotic S, Feist-Schwenk M et al (2007) Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: long-term experience with an algorithm for laser endopyelotomy and laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty. J Urol 177:1000–1005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Türk IA, Davis JW, Winkelmann B (2002) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: the method of choice in the presence of an enlarged renal pelvis and crossing vessels. Eur Urol 42:268–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rassweiler J, Teber D, Frede T (2008) Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. World J Urol 26:539–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Calvert RC, Morsy MM, Zellhof B, Rhodes M, Burgess NA (2008) Comparison of laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in 100 patients with pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Surg Endosc 22:411–414

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ramakumar S, Lancini V, Chan DY, Parsons JK, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW (2002) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with concomitant pyelolithotomy. J Urol 167:1378–1380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Davenport K, Minervini A, Timoney AG, Keeley FX Jr (2005) Our experience with retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric-junction obstruction. Eur Urol 48:973–977

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Maynes LJ, Levin BM, Webster TM, Baldwin D, Herrell SD (2008) Measuring the true success of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 22:1193–1198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Porpiglia F, Billia M, Volpe A, Morra I, Scarpa RM (2007) Transperitoneal left laparoscopic pyeloplasty with transmesocolic access to the pelvi-ureteric junction: technique description and results with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. BJU Int 101:1024–1028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Klinger HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ (2003) Comparison of open vs. laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 44:340–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Troxel S, Das S, Helfer E, Nugyen M (2006) Laparoscopy versus dorsal lumbotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair. J Urol 176:1073–1076

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yanke BV, Lallas CD, Pagnani C, McGinnis DE, Bagley DH (2008) The minimal invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a review of our experience during the last decade. J Urol 180:1397–1402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shoma AM, El Nahas AR, Bazeed MA (2007) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a prospective randomized comparison between the transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneoscopy. J Urol 178:2020–2024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Adeyoju AB, Hrouda D, Gill IS (2004) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first decade. BJU Int 94:264–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bachmann A, Ruszat R, Forster T et al (2006) Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO): solving the technical difficulties. Eur Urol 49:264–272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Eden CG (2007) Minimally invasive treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a critical analysis of results. Eur Urol 52:983–989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vijayanad D, Hasan T, Rix D, Soomro N (2006) Laparoscopic transperitoneal dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Endourol 20:1050–1053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Papalia R, Simone G, Leonardo C et al (2009) Retrograde placement of ureteral stent and ureteropelvic anastomosis with two running sutures in transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: tips of success in our learning curve. J Endourol 23:847–852

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaouk JH, Kuang W, Gill IS (2002) Laparoscopic dismembered tabularized flap pyeloplasty: a novel technique. J Urol 167:229–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Eden CG, Cahill D, Allen JD (2001) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: 50 consecutive cases. BJU Int 88:526–531

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

There is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, Martin-Luther-University, Ernst-Grube-Strasse 40, 06120, Halle/Saale, Germany

    Sigrid Wagner, Francesco Greco, Antonino Inferrera, M. Raschid Hoda, Felix Kawan, Amir Hamza & Paolo Fornara

Authors
  1. Sigrid Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesco Greco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonino Inferrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Raschid Hoda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Felix Kawan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Amir Hamza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paolo Fornara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Greco.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wagner, S., Greco, F., Inferrera, A. et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: technique and results in 105 patients. World J Urol 28, 615–618 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-009-0483-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-009-0483-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation