Buscar en
Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition) Comparison of the operation time and complications between conventional and robo...
Journal Information
Vol. 35. Issue 9.
Pages 523-528 (October 2011)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
ePub
Visits
1471
Vol. 35. Issue 9.
Pages 523-528 (October 2011)
Original Article
DOI: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2011.12.006
Comparison of the operation time and complications between conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty
Comparación del tiempo operatorio y complicaciones entre la pieloplastia laparoscópica convencional y robótica
Visits
...
E. García-Galisteoa,??
Corresponding author
eggalisteo@yahoo.es

Corresponding author.
, E. Emmanuel-Tejeroa, P. Navarro Vílcheza, J. García-Galisteob, V. Baena-Gonzáleza
a Unidad Clínica de Gestión de Urología, Hospital Universitario Carlos Haya, Málaga, Spain
b Departamento de Estadística, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Málaga, Spain
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (2)
Tables (3)
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty.
Table 2. Operation times of conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty (CLP) and robotic (RLP).
Table 3. Conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty (CLP) and robotic (RLP) surgical complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.
Show moreShow less
Abstract
Objective

To compare the different times into which the convention and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty can be divided. To compare the rate of complications between both procedures.

Material and methods

A retrospective study was performed of the patients diagnosed with pyeloureteral junction stenosis and treated with convention and robotic laparoscopic pyeloplasty with more than one year of follow-up. All of the interventions were recorded and visualized. The different times in which the pyeloplasty can be divided were measured. All of the peri- and post-operative complications that occurred in the patients were collected. The non-parametric tests of Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Mann–Whitney U-test for independent samples were applied using a significance level of 0.05.

Results

A total of 50 patients were validated. Thirty three were treated with convention laparoscopy and, 17 with robotic laparoscopy. The suture time, total intervention time and time of hospital stay were lower with a statistically significant difference in the robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. The robotic pyeloplasty had a lower percentage of complications (76.5% vs. 48.5%). The most frequent complications were urinary infections, in relation to the double J. Two restenoses occurred in the conventional laparoscopy and one in the robotic-assisted. The success rate was 93.9% for the conventional laparoscopy and 94.1% for the robotic-assisted one.

Conclusions

Although the success rate is similar in both procedures, the robotic pyeloplasty is a very fast procedure and has lower rates of complications than the conventional laparoscopy.

Keywords:
Pyeloureteral junction stenosis
Surgical treatment
Laparoscopic pyeloplasty
Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty
Operation times
Complications
Resumen
Objetivo

Comparar los diferentes tiempos en que podemos dividir la pieloplastia laparoscópica convencional y robótica. Comparar la tasa de complicaciones entre ambos procedimientos.

Material y métodos

Estudio retrospectivo de los pacientes diagnosticados de estenosis de la unión pieloureteral tratados mediante pieloplastia laparoscópica convencional y robótica con más de un año de seguimiento. Se han grabado y revisualizado todas las intervenciones. Se han medido los diferentes tiempos en que podemos dividir la pieloplastia. Se han recogido todas las complicaciones peri y postoperatorias presentadas por los pacientes. Se aplicaron las pruebas no paramétricas de Kolmogorov-Smirnov y la U de Mann–Whitney para muestras independientes utilizando un nivel de significación de 0.05.

Resultados

Han sido válidos 50 pacientes, 33 tratados con laparoscopia convencional y 17 mediante laparoscopia robótica. El tiempo de sutura, tiempo total de la intervención y la estancia hospitalaria han sido menores con una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en la pieloplastia robótica. La pieloplastia robótica ha presentado menor porcentaje de complicaciones (76,5% vs. 48,5%). Las complicaciones más frecuentes fueron las infecciones urinarias, en relación al doble J. Se han producido 2 reestenosis en la laparoscopia convencional y 1 en la robótica. Tasa de éxitos del 93,9% para la laparoscopia convencional y de 94,1% para la robótica.

Conclusiones

Aunque la tasa de éxitos es similar en ambos procedimientos, la pieloplastia robótica es un procedimiento más rápido y tiene menos tasas de complicaciones que la laparoscopia convencional.

Palabras clave:
Estenosis unión pieloureteral
Tratamiento quirúrgico
Pieloplastia laparoscópica
Pieloplastia robótica
Tiempos operatorios
Complicaciones

Article

These are the options to access the full texts of the publication Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition)
Subscriber
Subscriber

If you already have your login data, please click here .

If you have forgotten your password you can you can recover it by clicking here and selecting the option “I have forgotten my password”
Subscribe
Subscribe to

Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition)

Purchase
Purchase article

Purchasing article the PDF version will be downloaded

Price 19.34 €

Purchase now
Contact
Phone for subscriptions and reporting of errors
From Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. (GMT + 1) except for the months of July and August which will be from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Calls from Spain
932 415 960
Calls from outside Spain
+34 932 415 960
E-mail
Article options
Tools
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos