These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty.
    Author: Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N, McDougall EM.
    Journal: J Endourol; 2003 Apr; 17(3):155-60. PubMed ID: 12803987.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare Acucise endopyelotomy (Applied Medical, Irvine, California), laparoscopic pyeloplasty, and open pyeloplasty in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all adult patients undergoing surgical correction of UPJ obstruction between December 1999 and August 2001 at Vanderbilt University Medical Center was performed. Patients undergoing UPJ correction with Acucise endopyelotomy (N = 9), laparoscopic pyeloplasty (N = 16), and open pyeloplasty (N = 7) were compared in regard to demographic information, operative data, recovery parameters, cost data, and outcome (as determined by diuretic renography, the Whitaker test, or both). RESULTS: Success rates of 56%, 94%, and 86% were obtained for Acucise endopyelotomy, laparoscopic pyeloplasty, and open pyeloplasty, respectively. There were no differences between the Acucise endopyelotomy and laparoscopic pyeloplasty groups in age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, length of follow-up, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital stay, total hospital cost, or analgesic requirement. The Acucise patients demonstrated shorter operating times (1.7 v 3.3 hours; P < 0.001) and time to oral intake (7.9 v 16 hours; P = 0.008) than the laparoscopic pyeloplasty group. When the laparoscopic pyeloplasty patients were compared with the open pyeloplasty patients, there was no difference in operative time, EBL, time to oral intake, or total hospital costs. The laparoscopically treated patients demonstrated significantly lower analgesic requirements (27.2 v 124.2 mg of morphine sulfate equivalent; P = 0.02) and shorter hospital stays (1.4 v 3.0 days; P = 0.03) than the open surgery patients. The Acucise patients demonstrated shorter operative time (1.7 v 3.4 hours; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (1.3 v 3.0 days; P = 0.02), and lower analgesic requirement (22.4 v 124.2 mg of morphine sulfate equivalent; P = 0.02) than the open surgery patients. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty achieves a success rate equal to that of open pyeloplasty while providing a recovery similar to that obtained with Acucise endopyelotomy and is gaining popularity as the treatment of choice for UPJ obstruction.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]