Unstented laparoscopic pyeloplasty in young children (1-5 years old): a comparison with a repair using double-J stent or transanastomotic externalized stent
Language English Country Great Britain, England Media print-electronic
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article
PubMed
24957464
DOI
10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.04.017
PII: S1477-5131(14)00155-7
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Double-J stent in children, Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children, Paediatric pyeloplasty, Unstented laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Ureteropelvic junction obstruction,
- MeSH
- Length of Stay MeSH
- Child MeSH
- Hydronephrosis surgery MeSH
- Infant MeSH
- Laparoscopy * MeSH
- Kidney Pelvis surgery MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Ureteral Obstruction surgery MeSH
- Child, Preschool MeSH
- Prosthesis Design MeSH
- Pyelonephritis prevention & control MeSH
- Stents * MeSH
- Urologic Surgical Procedures methods MeSH
- Check Tag
- Child MeSH
- Infant MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Child, Preschool MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate feasibility of unstented laparoscopic pyeloplasty in young children to prevent pyelonephritis and second anaesthesia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During 2006-2013, 70 children (1-5 years old) underwent laparoscopic pyeloplasty for high grade hydronephrosis. Unstented repair was indicated in 34 children (GroupL1), double-J stent was placed in 21 patients (Group L2) and uretero-pyelostomy stent (Cook) in 15 patients (Group L3). Stenting was preferred in large thin-walled pelvis, thin ureter, kidney malrotation, and unfavourable course of crossing vessels. The outcome was compared with age-matched group of 52 children who had open surgery during 1996-2006 (Groups O1, O3). RESULTS: Operation times were significantly shorter in Groups L1 and L2 than in Group L3; the times were shorter in open repairs. Three patients with crossing vessels from Group L1 had urine leakage and one had obstruction (11.4%). In Group L2, one patient had obstruction, one incorrect placement of the stent, and one girl had serious pyelonephritis (14.3%). In Group L3, displacement of uretero-pyelostomy occurred in one patient (6.7%). There is no statistical difference between laparoscopic groups and between laparoscopic and open groups. CONCLUSION: Unstented laparoscopic pyeloplasty is a safe procedure in selected young children with favourable anatomical conditions preventing additional anaesthesia and stent-related complications.
References provided by Crossref.org