We have located links that may give you full text access.
Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with concomitant pyelolithotomy.
Journal of Urology 2002 March
PURPOSE: We present our experience with laparoscopic pyeloplasty plus pyelolithotomy in patients in whom stones were not the cause of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A transperitoneal approach was used for laparoscopic pyeloplasty and pyelolithotomy in 19 patients (20 renal units). Before ureteropelvic junction repair stones were extracted through a small pyelotomy that was eventually incorporated into the final pyeloplasty incision. Stones in the renal pelvis were removed with rigid graspers under direct laparoscopic vision. A flexible cystoscope introduced through a port was used to extract stones in the calices. The renal pelvis was reconstructed based on the anatomy of the ureteropelvic junction.
RESULTS: A median of 1 stone (range 1 to 28) was recovered. In 11, 8 and 1 patients the Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty, Y-V plasty and the Heinecke Mickulicz procedure were performed, respectively. At 3 months 2 patients had residual calculi for a procedural stone-free rate of 90%. There was no evidence of obstruction in 18 of the 20 cases (90%), as confirmed by negative diuretic scan or radiological improvement of hydronephrosis. At a mean followup of 12 months (range 3 to 57) 2 additional patients had recurrent stones for an overall long-term stone-free rate of 80% (16 of 20).
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy is feasible when combined with pyeloplasty. Our results are comparable to those of stone removal during open pyeloplasty or percutaneous endopyelotomy. The advantages of open surgery appear to be maintained in this minimally invasive approach.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A transperitoneal approach was used for laparoscopic pyeloplasty and pyelolithotomy in 19 patients (20 renal units). Before ureteropelvic junction repair stones were extracted through a small pyelotomy that was eventually incorporated into the final pyeloplasty incision. Stones in the renal pelvis were removed with rigid graspers under direct laparoscopic vision. A flexible cystoscope introduced through a port was used to extract stones in the calices. The renal pelvis was reconstructed based on the anatomy of the ureteropelvic junction.
RESULTS: A median of 1 stone (range 1 to 28) was recovered. In 11, 8 and 1 patients the Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty, Y-V plasty and the Heinecke Mickulicz procedure were performed, respectively. At 3 months 2 patients had residual calculi for a procedural stone-free rate of 90%. There was no evidence of obstruction in 18 of the 20 cases (90%), as confirmed by negative diuretic scan or radiological improvement of hydronephrosis. At a mean followup of 12 months (range 3 to 57) 2 additional patients had recurrent stones for an overall long-term stone-free rate of 80% (16 of 20).
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy is feasible when combined with pyeloplasty. Our results are comparable to those of stone removal during open pyeloplasty or percutaneous endopyelotomy. The advantages of open surgery appear to be maintained in this minimally invasive approach.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2025 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app