• Something wrong with this record ?

Global minimally invasive pyeloplasty study in children: Results from the Pediatric Urology Expert Group of the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists working party

MS. Silay, AF. Spinoit, S. Undre, V. Fiala, Z. Tandogdu, T. Garmanova, A. Guttilla, AA. Sancaktutar, B. Haid, M. Waldert, A. Goyal, EC. Serefoglu, E. Baldassarre, G. Manzoni, A. Radford, R. Subramaniam, A. Cherian, P. Hoebeke, M. Jacobs, B....

. 2016 ; 12 (4) : 229.e1-7. [pub] 20160512

Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc17023884

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive pyeloplasty (MIP) for ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction in children has gained popularity over the past decade as an alternative to open surgery. The present study aimed to identify the factors affecting complication rates of MIP in children, and to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic (LP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The perioperative data of 783 pediatric patients (<18 years old) from 15 academic centers who underwent either LP or RALP with an Anderson Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty technique were retrospectively evaluated. Redo cases and patients with anatomic renal abnormalities were excluded. Demographics and operative data, including procedural factors, were collected. Complications were classified according to the Satava and modified Clavien systems. Failure was defined as any of the following: obstructive parameters on diuretic renal scintigraphy, decline in renal function, progressive hydronephrosis, or symptom relapse. Univariate and multivariate analysis were applied to identify factors affecting the complication rates. All parameters were compared between LP and RALP. RESULTS: A total of 575 children met the inclusion criteria. Laparoscopy, increased operative time, prolonged hospital stay, ureteral stenting technique, and time required for stenting were factors influencing complication rates on univariate analysis. None of those factors remained significant on multivariate analysis. Mean follow-up was 12.8 ± 9.8 months for RALP and 45.2 ± 33.8 months for LP (P = 0.001). Hospital stay and time for stenting were shorter for robotic pyeloplasty (P < 0.05 for both). Success rates were similar between RALP and LP (99.5% vs 97.3%, P = 0.11). The intraoperative complication rate was comparable between RALP and LP (3.8% vs 7.4%, P = 0.06). However, the postoperative complication rate was significantly higher in the LP group (3.2% for RALP and 7.7% for LP, P = 0.02). All complications were of no greater severity than Satava Grade IIa and Clavien Grade IIIb. DISCUSSION: This was the largest multicenter series of LP and RALP in the pediatric population. Limitations of the study included the retrospective design and lack of surgical experience as a confounder. CONCLUSIONS: Both minimally invasive approaches that were studied were safe and highly effective in treating UPJ obstruction in children in many centers globally. However, shorter hospitalization time and lower postoperative complication rates with RALP were noted. The aims of the study were met.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc17023884
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20170906114443.0
007      
ta
008      
170720s2016 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.04.007 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)27346071
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Silay, M S $u Department of Urology, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey; Department of Urology, Texas Children's Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: selcuksilay@gmail.com.
245    10
$a Global minimally invasive pyeloplasty study in children: Results from the Pediatric Urology Expert Group of the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists working party / $c MS. Silay, AF. Spinoit, S. Undre, V. Fiala, Z. Tandogdu, T. Garmanova, A. Guttilla, AA. Sancaktutar, B. Haid, M. Waldert, A. Goyal, EC. Serefoglu, E. Baldassarre, G. Manzoni, A. Radford, R. Subramaniam, A. Cherian, P. Hoebeke, M. Jacobs, B. Rocco, R. Yuriy, F. Zattoni, R. Kocvara, CJ. Koh,
520    9_
$a INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive pyeloplasty (MIP) for ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction in children has gained popularity over the past decade as an alternative to open surgery. The present study aimed to identify the factors affecting complication rates of MIP in children, and to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic (LP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The perioperative data of 783 pediatric patients (<18 years old) from 15 academic centers who underwent either LP or RALP with an Anderson Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty technique were retrospectively evaluated. Redo cases and patients with anatomic renal abnormalities were excluded. Demographics and operative data, including procedural factors, were collected. Complications were classified according to the Satava and modified Clavien systems. Failure was defined as any of the following: obstructive parameters on diuretic renal scintigraphy, decline in renal function, progressive hydronephrosis, or symptom relapse. Univariate and multivariate analysis were applied to identify factors affecting the complication rates. All parameters were compared between LP and RALP. RESULTS: A total of 575 children met the inclusion criteria. Laparoscopy, increased operative time, prolonged hospital stay, ureteral stenting technique, and time required for stenting were factors influencing complication rates on univariate analysis. None of those factors remained significant on multivariate analysis. Mean follow-up was 12.8 ± 9.8 months for RALP and 45.2 ± 33.8 months for LP (P = 0.001). Hospital stay and time for stenting were shorter for robotic pyeloplasty (P < 0.05 for both). Success rates were similar between RALP and LP (99.5% vs 97.3%, P = 0.11). The intraoperative complication rate was comparable between RALP and LP (3.8% vs 7.4%, P = 0.06). However, the postoperative complication rate was significantly higher in the LP group (3.2% for RALP and 7.7% for LP, P = 0.02). All complications were of no greater severity than Satava Grade IIa and Clavien Grade IIIb. DISCUSSION: This was the largest multicenter series of LP and RALP in the pediatric population. Limitations of the study included the retrospective design and lack of surgical experience as a confounder. CONCLUSIONS: Both minimally invasive approaches that were studied were safe and highly effective in treating UPJ obstruction in children in many centers globally. However, shorter hospitalization time and lower postoperative complication rates with RALP were noted. The aims of the study were met.
650    _2
$a mladiství $7 D000293
650    _2
$a dítě $7 D002648
650    _2
$a předškolní dítě $7 D002675
650    _2
$a Evropa $7 D005060
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a kojenec $7 D007223
650    _2
$a ledvinná pánvička $x chirurgie $7 D007682
650    12
$a laparoskopie $7 D010535
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a miniinvazivní chirurgické výkony $7 D019060
650    _2
$a pooperační komplikace $x epidemiologie $7 D011183
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    12
$a roboticky asistované výkony $7 D065287
650    _2
$a společnosti lékařské $7 D012955
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a obstrukce močovodu $x chirurgie $7 D014517
650    _2
$a urologické chirurgické výkony $x metody $7 D013520
650    _2
$a urologie $7 D014572
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Spinoit, A F $u Department of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
700    1_
$a Undre, S $u Department of Pediatric Urology, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK.
700    1_
$a Fiala, V $u Department of Urology, General Teaching Hospital in Prague and Charles University, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Tandogdu, Z $u Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
700    1_
$a Garmanova, T $u Department of Urology, Institute of Moscow, Moscow, Russia.
700    1_
$a Guttilla, A $u Department of Urology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
700    1_
$a Sancaktutar, A A $u Department of Urology, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey.
700    1_
$a Haid, B $u Department of Pediatric Urology, Sisters of the Charity Hospital, Linz, Austria.
700    1_
$a Waldert, M $u Department of Urology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
700    1_
$a Goyal, A $u Department of Pediatric Urology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
700    1_
$a Serefoglu, E C $u Department of Urology, Bagcilar Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
700    1_
$a Baldassarre, E $u Department of Urology, Umberto Parini Hospital, Aosta, Italy.
700    1_
$a Manzoni, G $u Department of Urology, Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
700    1_
$a Radford, A $u Department of Pediatric Urology, Leeds Children's Hospital, Leeds, UK.
700    1_
$a Subramaniam, R $u Department of Pediatric Urology, Leeds Children's Hospital, Leeds, UK.
700    1_
$a Cherian, A $u Department of Pediatric Urology, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK.
700    1_
$a Hoebeke, P $u Department of Urology, General Teaching Hospital in Prague and Charles University, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Jacobs, M $u Department of Pediatric Urology, Children's Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
700    1_
$a Rocco, B $u Department of Urology, Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
700    1_
$a Yuriy, R $u Department of Urology, Institute of Moscow, Moscow, Russia.
700    1_
$a Zattoni, Fabio $u Department of Urology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
700    1_
$a Kocvara, R $u Department of Urology, General Teaching Hospital in Prague and Charles University, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Koh, C J $u Department of Urology, Texas Children's Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
773    0_
$w MED00166989 $t Journal of pediatric urology $x 1873-4898 $g Roč. 12, č. 4 (2016), s. 229.e1-7
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27346071 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20170720 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20170906115041 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1239565 $s 984797
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2016 $b 12 $c 4 $d 229.e1-7 $e 20160512 $i 1873-4898 $m Journal of pediatric urology $n J Pediatr Urol $x MED00166989
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20170720

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options