Single-Center Comparison of Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty, Acucise Endopyelotomy, and Open Pyeloplasty
- 1 April 2003
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Mary Ann Liebert Inc in Journal of Endourology
- Vol. 17 (3) , 155-160
- https://doi.org/10.1089/089277903321618716
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.Keywords
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- EXTRAPERITONEAL LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY: A MULTICENTER STUDY OF 55 PROCEDURESJournal of Urology, 2001
- COMPLICATIONS OF RETROGRADE BALLOON CAUTERY ENDOPYELOTOMYJournal of Urology, 1999
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Application to EndourologyJournal of Endourology, 1998
- Complications of Acucise EndopyelotomyJournal of Endourology, 1998
- Impact of Etiology of Secondary Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction on Outcome of EndopyelotomyJournal of Endourology, 1998
- Retrograde Balloon Dilatation for Pelviureteric Junction Obstruction: Long-Term Follow-UpJournal of Endourology, 1997
- A Multicenter Clinical Trial Investigating the Use of a Fluoroscopically Controlled Cutting Balloon Catheter for the Management of Ureteral and Ureteropelvic Junction ObstructionJournal of Urology, 1997
- The Dilemma of the Crossing Vessel at the Ureteropelvic Junction: Precise Anatomic StudyJournal of Endourology, 1996
- Complications of EndopyelotomyJournal of Endourology, 1996
- Vessels Around the Ureteropelvic Junction: Significance and Imaging by Conventional RadiologyJournal of Endourology, 1996