Landa-Juárez S, López-Pérez D, Miguel-Gómez RD, Andraca-Dumit R

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 156-160
PDF size: 244.67 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Traditionally therapeutic peritoneal laparoscopic approach for ureteropelvic junction stenosis (UPJS) has been retrocolic, taking down the colon and mesentery medially in order to expose the ureter and the renal pelvis. This dissection is avoided with the transmesentery approach, which is the subject of this paper. Material and method: Between 2005-2006, we performed 52 pyeloplasties for UPJS; only eleven were done by laparoscopy (two retrocolic and nine transmesenteric). The patient is placed in a lateral position with slight angulation of the surgical table. With the intestinal loops displaced to the midline the colon mesentery is incised avoiding damage of vascular structures. The UPJ and the type of stenosis was identified. The pelvis at the level of the UPJ is retracted with a transparietal suture; the ureter is incised laterally two cm and is then anastomosed to the pelvis with a continuous suture. A double “J” catheter is placed and the anterior wall of the anastomosis is sutured. The absence of bleeding or leakage is verified and a Penrose drainage is used. Results: Eleven laparoscopic peritoneal pyeloplasties were done. Nine of them were trasmesenteric in the left kidney. Patients’ age was 9 months to 15 years (average of 7.87). Surgical time was 180 to 330 minutes (average of 255). There was one complication, stenosis in one anastomosis in a patient in whom a double “J” catheter was not used. Discussion: The transmesenteric laparoscopic approach allows ample and quick dissection of the UPJ with minimal mobilization of abdominal organs. The distended renal pelvis with a double “J” catheter permitt to identify the site and type of stenosis thus avoiding a preoperatory cistoscopy. The disadvantages of the transmesocolic approach are limited to the left kidney and that it requires experience in the handling of the instruments to avoid prolonged surgical time. The outcome in solving the obstruction was similar to that obtained with the open technique.

REFERENCES

1. Landa JS, Maldonado WS, Hernández GH, Zaldivar JC, Zepeda JS, Velásquez JO. Obstruccion pieloureteral: experiencia de 13 años. Rev Mex Cir Ped 1999;6:52.

2. Shuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993;150;795.

3. Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ. Comparision of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2003;44:340.

4. Tan BJ, Rastinehad AR, Marcovich R, Smith AD, Lee BR.Trends in ureteropelvic junction obstruction management among urologists in the United States. Urology 2005;65:260.

5. Schwab CW II, Casale P. Bilateral dismembered laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty via transperitoneal 4-port approach. J Urol 2005;174:1091.

6. Tan HL. Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 1999;162:1045.

7. Chiu AW, Chen KK, Chang LS. Retroperitoneoscopic dismembered pyloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Endourol 1994;8:S60.

8. Eden C, Gianduzzo T, Chang C, Thiruchelvam N, Jones A. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary and secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2004;172:2308.

9. Pareek G, Hedican SP, Gee JR, Bruskewitz RC, Nakada SY. Meta-analysis of the complications of laparoscopic renal surgery: comparison of procedures and techniques. J Urol 2006;175:1208.

10. Romero FR, Wagner AA, Trapp C, Permpongkosol S, Muntener M, Link RE, Kavoussi LR. Transmesenteric laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 2006;176:2526.

11. Eposito C, Lima M, et al. Complications in pediatric urological laparoscopy: Mistakes and risks. J Urol 2003;169:1490.

12. Karklin GS, Badlani GH, Smith AD. Endopyelotomy versus open pyeloplasty. Comparison in 88 patients. J Urol 1999;140:476.

13. Webster TM, Baumgartner R, Sprunger JK, Baldwin DD, McDougall EM, Herrell SD. A clinical pathway for laparoscopic pyeloplasty decreases length of stay. J Urol 2005;173:2081.

14. Rubinstein M, Finelli A, Moinzadeh A, Singh D, Ukimura O,Desai MM. Outpatient laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Urology 2005;66:41.

15. Ost MC, Kaye JD, Guttman MJ, Lee BR, Smith AD. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus antegrade endopyelotomy: comparison in 100 patients and a new algorithm for the minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 2005;66:47.