Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Laparoscopic Repair of Vesicoureteral Reflux Utilizing the Lich-Gregoir Technique in the Pig Model

1995; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 153; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1097/00005392-199502000-00070

1527-3792

Elspeth M. McDougall, Donald A. Urban, Kurt Kerbl, R V Clayman, PAUL A. FADDEN, Henry D. Royal, Paramjit S. Chandhoke, Andrea Stone,

Ureteral procedures and complications

No AccessJournal of UrologyInvestigative Urology1 Feb 1995Laparoscopic Repair of Vesicoureteral Reflux Utilizing the Lich-Gregoir Technique in the Pig Model Elspeth M. McDougall, Donald A. Urban, Kurt Kerbl, Ralph V. Clayman, Paul Fadden, Henry D. Royal, Paramjit S. Chandhoke, and A.M. Stone Elspeth M. McDougallElspeth M. McDougall , Donald A. UrbanDonald A. Urban , Kurt KerblKurt Kerbl , Ralph V. ClaymanRalph V. Clayman , Paul FaddenPaul Fadden , Henry D. RoyalHenry D. Royal , Paramjit S. ChandhokeParamjit S. Chandhoke , and A.M. StoneA.M. Stone View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/00005392-199502000-00070AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail To date, laparoscopic urological surgery has largely been limited to diagnostic or ablative procedures. Herein we report our experience with laparoscopic reconstructive surgery to perform an extravesical ureteral reimplantation. Seven anesthetized pigs with iatrogenic ureteral reflux underwent a laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation. The newly created ureteral tunnel varied from 2 to 4 cm. In 3 pigs, the tunnel was created with tacking staples, while in the other 4 pigs, the tunnel was created with intracorporeal suturing techniques using a 3-zero polyglyconate running suture. The procedure required an average of 132 minutes. There was one anesthetic death. There were no urinary tract infections. At 3 to 8 weeks after reimplantation, the cystograms were repeated on 5 pigs. One of 2 stapled reimplant pigs still had reflux; 1 of 3 sewn reimplant pigs had reflux. At 6 months following the reimplantation, only 1 pig had residual grade I reflux and this was a sutured reimplantation. None of the stapled reimplantations exhibited any residual reflux on the surgical side; however, in 1 animal a submucosal staple was noted at the time of harvest. References 1 : Laparoscopic urology: past, present and future. World. J. Surg.1993; 17: 57. Google Scholar 2 : Comparison of early postoperative results for laparoscopic vs. standard open cholecystectomy. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet.1992; 174: 114. Google Scholar 3 : Transperitoneal endosurgical lymphadenectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer. J. Urol.1991; 145: 988. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Laparoscopic varix ligation. J. Urol.1991; 145: 325A. Google Scholar 5 : Laparoscopic drainage of a post-transplant lymphocele. Transplantation1991; 51: 725. Google Scholar 6 : Laparoscopic ureterolysis. J. Urol.1992; 147: 426. Link, Google Scholar 7 : Preoperative laparoscopic localization of the nonpalpable testis. J. Urol.1985; 134: 919. Link, Google Scholar 8 : Vesicoureteral reflux, megaureter, and ureteral reimplantation. In: Campbell's Urology. Edited by . Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.1992: 2034. Google Scholar 10 : Ureterovesical anastomosis: the description and evaluation of a technique. J. Urol.1959; 82: 573. Link, Google Scholar 11 : Recurrent urosepsis in children. J. Urol.1961; 86: 554. Link, Google Scholar 12 : Le traitement chirurgical du reflux vesico-ureteral congenital. Acta Chir. Belg.1964; 4: 431. Google Scholar 13 : Die Extravesikal Antirefluxplastik. Urologe A1977; 16: 124. Google Scholar 14 : The Lich-Gregoir antirefluxplasty: experience with 371 children. J. Urol.1978; 120: 216. Abstract, Google Scholar From the Department of Surgery, Division of Urologic Surgery and Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MissouriRequests for reprints: Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 1040 North Mason, Suite 122, St. Louis, Missouri 63141© 1995 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byKojima Y, Mizuno K, Umemoto Y, Yasui T, Hayashi Y and Kohri K (2012) Ureteral Advancement in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Extravesical Ureteral Reimplantation for Treatment of Vesicoureteral RefluxJournal of Urology, VOL. 188, NO. 2, (582-587), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2012.Seideman C, Huckabay C, Smith K, Permpongkosol S, Nadjafi-Semnani M, Lee B, Richstone L and Kavoussi L (2009) Laparoscopic Ureteral Reimplantation: Technique and OutcomesJournal of Urology, VOL. 181, NO. 4, (1742-1746), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2009.Modi P, Gupta R and Rizvi S (2008) Laparoscopic Ureteroneocystostomy and Psoas Hitch for Post-Hysterectomy Ureterovaginal FistulaJournal of Urology, VOL. 180, NO. 2, (615-617), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2008.Ansari M, Mandhani A, Khurana N and Kumar A (2018) Laparoscopic Ureteral Reimplantation With Extracorporeal Tailoring for Megaureter: A Simple Technical NuanceJournal of Urology, VOL. 176, NO. 6, (2640-2642), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2006.GILL I, PONSKY L, DESAI M, KAY R and ROSS J (2018) LAPAROSCOPIC CROSS-TRIGONAL COHEN URETERONEOCYSTOSTOMY: NOVEL TECHNIQUEJournal of Urology, VOL. 166, NO. 5, (1811-1814), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2001. Volume 153Issue 2February 1995Page: 497-500 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 1995 by American Urological Association, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Elspeth M. McDougall More articles by this author Donald A. Urban More articles by this author Kurt Kerbl More articles by this author Ralph V. Clayman More articles by this author Paul Fadden More articles by this author Henry D. Royal More articles by this author Paramjit S. Chandhoke More articles by this author A.M. Stone More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...