Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

IS ANTEGRADE STENTING SUPERIOR TO RETROGRADE STENTING IN LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY?

2004; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 171; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1097/01.ju.0000116546.06765.d1

1527-3792

Anil Mandhani, Shailendra Goel, Mahendra Bhandari,

Congenital gastrointestinal and neural anomalies

No AccessJournal of UrologyCLINICAL UROLOGY: Original Articles1 Apr 2004IS ANTEGRADE STENTING SUPERIOR TO RETROGRADE STENTING IN LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY?is corrected byRE: IS ANTEGRADE STENTING SUPERIOR TO RETROGRADE STENTING IN LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY?RE: IS ANTEGRADE STENTING SUPERIOR TO RETROGRADE STENTING IN LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY? ANIL MANDHANI, SHAILENDRA GOEL, and MAHENDRA BHANDARI ANIL MANDHANIANIL MANDHANI , SHAILENDRA GOELSHAILENDRA GOEL , and MAHENDRA BHANDARIMAHENDRA BHANDARI View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000116546.06765.d1AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We describe a simple and timesaving technique of antegrade stenting. We compared it with retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Materials and Methods: From December 2002 to August 2003, 24 patients with mean age of 24.29 years (range 5 to 57) had a Double-J (Medical Engineering Corp., New York, New York) stent placed laparoscopically after finishing the posterior suture line. The stent and ureteral catheter straightened over the guide wire were introduced through the lumen of a 5 mm hook or suction canula via a subcostal port. This technique was compared with retrograde stenting in 21 consecutive patients with mean age of 24.45 years (range 6 to 65) in terms of stenting time and failure to stent leading to conversion. Results: In 23 of 24 cases laparoscopic stenting could be completed in a mean time of 5.2 minutes. In case 1 the stent was lying outside the pelvis because it was placed after ureteropelvic anastomosis was completed. The stent was retrieved after placing the ports again and reinserted with retrograde technique. In subsequent cases the stent was inserted successfully after completing the posterior suture line and visualizing the ureteral lumen. Mean time of retrograde stenting was 39.35 minutes. One case was converted to open pyeloplasty after retrograde stenting failed and in another 5Fr ureteral catheter was left instead. However, this patient required percutaneous stenting on postoperative day 5. With retrograde stenting stent severance and upward migration into the ureter occurred in 1 patient each, while none of the patients with laparoscopic stenting showed such problems. Conclusions: Laparoscopic stenting is a simple technique that obviates the need for an additional procedure and decreases the risk of the stent being cut or migrating upward. It also provides better anatomical delineation and dissection around the ureteropelvic junction since the pelvis remains distended. In addition, it makes suture placement and knot tying easy. References 1 : Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a multicenter study of 55 procedures. J Urol2001; 166: 48. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: 50 consecutive cases. BJU Int2001; 88: 526. Google Scholar 3 : Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol2002; 167: 1253. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Pediatric pyeloplasty: is routine retrograde pyelography necessary?. J Urol1994; 152: 604. Link, Google Scholar 5 : Is visualising ureter before pyeloplasty necessary in adult patients?. Int Urol Nephrol2000; 32: 33. Google Scholar 6 : Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci Robotic system. Urology2002; 60: 509. Google Scholar 7 : Laparoscopic Anderson Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children using needlescopic instrumentation. Urol Clin North Am2001; 28: 43. Google Scholar 8 : A simple technique for retroperitoneal laparoscopic JJ stenting of the ureter. BJU Int2003; 91: 725. Google Scholar 9 : Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with concomitant pyelolithotomy. J Urol2002; 167: 1378. Link, Google Scholar 10 : Laparoscopic treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology2002; 60: 973. Google Scholar From the Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India© 2004 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byCasella D, Fox J, Schneck F, Cannon G and Ost M (2018) Cost Analysis of Pediatric Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic PyeloplastyJournal of Urology, VOL. 189, NO. 3, (1083-1086), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2013.Cascio S, Tien A, Chee W and Tan H (2018) Laparoscopic Dismembered Pyeloplasty in Children Younger Than 2 YearsJournal of Urology, VOL. 177, NO. 1, (335-338), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2007.Yucel S, Samuelson M, Nguyen M and Baker L (2018) Usefulness of Short-Term Retrievable Ureteral Stent in Pediatric Laparoscopic PyeloplastyJournal of Urology, VOL. 177, NO. 2, (720-725), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2007.Metzelder M, Schier F, Petersen C, Truss M and Ure B (2018) Laparoscopic Transabdominal Pyeloplasty in Children is Feasible Irrespective of AgeJournal of Urology, VOL. 175, NO. 2, (688-691), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2006.Related articlesJournal of Urology9 Nov 2018RE: IS ANTEGRADE STENTING SUPERIOR TO RETROGRADE STENTING IN LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY?Journal of Urology9 Nov 2018RE: IS ANTEGRADE STENTING SUPERIOR TO RETROGRADE STENTING IN LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY? Volume 171Issue 4April 2004Page: 1440-1442 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2004 by American Urological Association, Inc.KeywordslaparoscopykidneystentsMetricsAuthor Information ANIL MANDHANI More articles by this author SHAILENDRA GOEL More articles by this author MAHENDRA BHANDARI More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...