Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare minilaparoscopic (MLS) and open pyeloplasty (OP) in children <1 year in terms of intra- and perioperative outcomes and esthetic results. Materials and Methods: Patients <1 year of age, with prenatal hydronephrosis, who underwent Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty for monolateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) at our center from January 2016 to August 2017 were enrolled in the study. Outcomes evaluated were as follows: operative time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative pain anterior-posterior pelvic diameter (APD) reduction. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was utilized to evaluate esthetic results. Mean follow-up was 26.5 months. Results: Eighteen patients (11M, 7F) of mean age 8.1 months (range 4-12) and mean weight 8.5 kg (range 7-10) underwent Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty in the study period. Nine of eighteen underwent OP, and 9/18 underwent MLS. Mean operative time was 167 minutes for MLS versus 153 minutes for OP (P = .14). Mean hospital stay was 3.9 days for MLS versus 5.3 days for OP (P = .11). Mean APD reduction was 13.6 mm for MLS and 16.5 mm for OP procedures (P = .63). Mean VSS score was 1.3 for VLS versus 3.4 for OP (P = .04). Conclusions: MLS pyeloplasty is feasible and safe, and reported equivalent results as open procedure for management of UPJO also in toddlers and infants. We found that the only significant difference between the two approaches in children <1 year was represented by the esthetic outcome in the short follow-up period.

Minilaparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty in Children Less Than 1 Year / Masieri L.; Sforza S.; Cini C.; Escolino M.; Grosso A.; Esposito C.; Minervini A.; Carini M.. - In: JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES. - ISSN 1092-6429. - ELETTRONICO. - 29:(2019), pp. 970-975. [10.1089/lap.2018.0586]

Minilaparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty in Children Less Than 1 Year

Masieri L.
;
Sforza S.;Cini C.;Minervini A.;Carini M.
2019

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare minilaparoscopic (MLS) and open pyeloplasty (OP) in children <1 year in terms of intra- and perioperative outcomes and esthetic results. Materials and Methods: Patients <1 year of age, with prenatal hydronephrosis, who underwent Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty for monolateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) at our center from January 2016 to August 2017 were enrolled in the study. Outcomes evaluated were as follows: operative time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative pain anterior-posterior pelvic diameter (APD) reduction. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was utilized to evaluate esthetic results. Mean follow-up was 26.5 months. Results: Eighteen patients (11M, 7F) of mean age 8.1 months (range 4-12) and mean weight 8.5 kg (range 7-10) underwent Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty in the study period. Nine of eighteen underwent OP, and 9/18 underwent MLS. Mean operative time was 167 minutes for MLS versus 153 minutes for OP (P = .14). Mean hospital stay was 3.9 days for MLS versus 5.3 days for OP (P = .11). Mean APD reduction was 13.6 mm for MLS and 16.5 mm for OP procedures (P = .63). Mean VSS score was 1.3 for VLS versus 3.4 for OP (P = .04). Conclusions: MLS pyeloplasty is feasible and safe, and reported equivalent results as open procedure for management of UPJO also in toddlers and infants. We found that the only significant difference between the two approaches in children <1 year was represented by the esthetic outcome in the short follow-up period.
2019
29
970
975
Masieri L.; Sforza S.; Cini C.; Escolino M.; Grosso A.; Esposito C.; Minervini A.; Carini M.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
lap.2018.0586.pdf

Accesso chiuso

Descrizione: Articolo principale
Tipologia: Pdf editoriale (Version of record)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati
Dimensione 1.93 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.93 MB Adobe PDF   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificatore per citare o creare un link a questa risorsa: https://hdl.handle.net/2158/1178513
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 16
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 14
social impact