Mini-invasive robotic assisted pyelolithotomy: Comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach
Objective: To compare the retroperitoneal with the transperitoneal approach in a series of patients underwent to robotic-assisted pyelolithotomy (RP). Materials and methods: From January 2015 to December 2018 we evaluated 20 patients subjected to robotic pyelolithotomy; 11 patients were treated wi...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
PAGEPress Publications
2019-07-01
|
Series: | Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/aiua/article/view/8143 |
id |
doaj-b3cad24bbcdb4831bf037bcfdba0f7bb |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-b3cad24bbcdb4831bf037bcfdba0f7bb2020-11-25T03:58:34ZengPAGEPress PublicationsArchivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia1124-35622282-41972019-07-0191210.4081/aiua.2019.2.107Mini-invasive robotic assisted pyelolithotomy: Comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approachDaniele D'Agostino0Paolo Corsi1Marco Giampaoli2Federico Mineo Bianchi3Daniele Romagnoli4Simone Crivellaro5Giacomo Saraceni6Marco Garofalo7Riccardo Schiavina8Eugenio Brunocilla9Walter Artibani10Angelo Porreca11Department of Robotic Urological Surgery, Abano Terme Hospital, Abano TermeDepartment of Robotic Urological Surgery, Abano Terme Hospital, Abano TermeDepartment of Robotic Urological Surgery, Abano Terme Hospital, Abano TermeDepartment of Urology, University of BolognaDepartment of Robotic Urological Surgery, Abano Terme Hospital, Abano TermeDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, ILDepartment of Urology, University of BolognaDepartment of Urology, University of BolognaDepartment of Urology, University of BolognaDepartment of Urology, University of BolognaDepartment of Robotic Urological Surgery, Abano Terme Hospital, Abano TermeDepartment of Robotic Urological Surgery, Abano Terme Hospital, Abano Terme Objective: To compare the retroperitoneal with the transperitoneal approach in a series of patients underwent to robotic-assisted pyelolithotomy (RP). Materials and methods: From January 2015 to December 2018 we evaluated 20 patients subjected to robotic pyelolithotomy; 11 patients were treated with retroperitoneal approach (RRP) and 9 with transperitoneal approach (TRP). For each patient intra and perioperative data were recorded: operative time (OT), blood loss (BL), length of hospital stay (LOS), stone clearance, post-operative complications and time to remove the drain. The presence of stone fragments < 4 mm was considered as stone free rate. Results: The principal stone burden was greater in the TRP group than in the RRP group (48 ± 10 mm vs 32 ± 14 mm, p = 0.12). Preoperative hydronephrosis was present in 7 (64%) patients in RRP group and a mild hydronephrosis in 3 of TRP group (p = 0.04). The average operative time was higher in the RRP group than in the TRP group (203 ± 45 min vs 137 ± 31 min, p = 0.002). The average blood loss was 305 ± 175 ml in the RRP group versus 94 ± 104 ml in the TRP group (p = 0.005). The stone free rate was similar between the two groups, 36% (4 patients) in the RRP group and 44% (4 patients) in the TRP (p = 0.966). Conclusions: RP appears to be a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment for some patients with renal staghorn calculi or urinary tract malformations. The TRP may give lower operative time and better results in terms of blood loss and length of hospital stay. https://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/aiua/article/view/8143Transperitoneal pyelolithotomyRetroperitoneal pyelolithotomy |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Daniele D'Agostino Paolo Corsi Marco Giampaoli Federico Mineo Bianchi Daniele Romagnoli Simone Crivellaro Giacomo Saraceni Marco Garofalo Riccardo Schiavina Eugenio Brunocilla Walter Artibani Angelo Porreca |
spellingShingle |
Daniele D'Agostino Paolo Corsi Marco Giampaoli Federico Mineo Bianchi Daniele Romagnoli Simone Crivellaro Giacomo Saraceni Marco Garofalo Riccardo Schiavina Eugenio Brunocilla Walter Artibani Angelo Porreca Mini-invasive robotic assisted pyelolithotomy: Comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia Transperitoneal pyelolithotomy Retroperitoneal pyelolithotomy |
author_facet |
Daniele D'Agostino Paolo Corsi Marco Giampaoli Federico Mineo Bianchi Daniele Romagnoli Simone Crivellaro Giacomo Saraceni Marco Garofalo Riccardo Schiavina Eugenio Brunocilla Walter Artibani Angelo Porreca |
author_sort |
Daniele D'Agostino |
title |
Mini-invasive robotic assisted pyelolithotomy: Comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach |
title_short |
Mini-invasive robotic assisted pyelolithotomy: Comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach |
title_full |
Mini-invasive robotic assisted pyelolithotomy: Comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach |
title_fullStr |
Mini-invasive robotic assisted pyelolithotomy: Comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach |
title_full_unstemmed |
Mini-invasive robotic assisted pyelolithotomy: Comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach |
title_sort |
mini-invasive robotic assisted pyelolithotomy: comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach |
publisher |
PAGEPress Publications |
series |
Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia |
issn |
1124-3562 2282-4197 |
publishDate |
2019-07-01 |
description |
Objective: To compare the retroperitoneal with the transperitoneal approach in a series of patients underwent to robotic-assisted pyelolithotomy (RP).
Materials and methods: From January 2015 to December 2018 we evaluated 20 patients subjected to robotic pyelolithotomy; 11 patients were treated with retroperitoneal approach (RRP) and 9 with transperitoneal approach (TRP). For each patient intra and perioperative data were recorded: operative time (OT), blood loss (BL), length of hospital stay (LOS), stone clearance, post-operative complications and time to remove the drain. The presence of stone fragments < 4 mm was considered as stone free rate.
Results: The principal stone burden was greater in the TRP group than in the RRP group (48 ± 10 mm vs 32 ± 14 mm, p = 0.12). Preoperative hydronephrosis was present in 7 (64%) patients in RRP group and a mild hydronephrosis in 3 of TRP group (p = 0.04). The average operative time was higher in the RRP group than in the TRP group (203 ± 45 min vs 137 ± 31 min, p = 0.002). The average blood loss was 305 ± 175 ml in the RRP group versus 94 ± 104 ml in the TRP group (p = 0.005). The stone free rate was similar between the two groups, 36% (4 patients) in the RRP group and 44% (4 patients) in the TRP (p = 0.966).
Conclusions: RP appears to be a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment for some patients with renal staghorn calculi or urinary tract malformations. The TRP may give lower operative time and better results in terms of blood loss and length of hospital stay.
|
topic |
Transperitoneal pyelolithotomy Retroperitoneal pyelolithotomy |
url |
https://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/aiua/article/view/8143 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT danieledagostino miniinvasiveroboticassistedpyelolithotomycomparisonbetweenthetransperitonealandretroperitonealapproach AT paolocorsi miniinvasiveroboticassistedpyelolithotomycomparisonbetweenthetransperitonealandretroperitonealapproach AT marcogiampaoli miniinvasiveroboticassistedpyelolithotomycomparisonbetweenthetransperitonealandretroperitonealapproach AT federicomineobianchi miniinvasiveroboticassistedpyelolithotomycomparisonbetweenthetransperitonealandretroperitonealapproach AT danieleromagnoli miniinvasiveroboticassistedpyelolithotomycomparisonbetweenthetransperitonealandretroperitonealapproach AT simonecrivellaro miniinvasiveroboticassistedpyelolithotomycomparisonbetweenthetransperitonealandretroperitonealapproach AT giacomosaraceni miniinvasiveroboticassistedpyelolithotomycomparisonbetweenthetransperitonealandretroperitonealapproach AT marcogarofalo miniinvasiveroboticassistedpyelolithotomycomparisonbetweenthetransperitonealandretroperitonealapproach AT riccardoschiavina miniinvasiveroboticassistedpyelolithotomycomparisonbetweenthetransperitonealandretroperitonealapproach AT eugeniobrunocilla miniinvasiveroboticassistedpyelolithotomycomparisonbetweenthetransperitonealandretroperitonealapproach AT walterartibani miniinvasiveroboticassistedpyelolithotomycomparisonbetweenthetransperitonealandretroperitonealapproach AT angeloporreca miniinvasiveroboticassistedpyelolithotomycomparisonbetweenthetransperitonealandretroperitonealapproach |
_version_ |
1724456424426176512 |