Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nierenbeckenplastik – pro laparoskopisch

Pyeloplasty: pro laparoscopic

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Mit zunehmender Erfahrung und Verfügbarkeit des da Vinci®-Roboteroperationssystems erfolgte eine Ausweitung der Indikationen von anfangs ausschließlich ablativen Eingriffen wie Nephrektomie und radikale Prostatektomie auf rekonstruktive Eingriffe wie Nierenbeckenplastik, Blasenaugmentation und Harnableitung. Die laparoskopische Nierenbeckenplastik hat sich sowohl bei Erwachsenen als auch im Kindesalter etabliert wobei die Ergebnisse vergleichbar sind mit denen der offenen Operation. Das konventionell laparoskopische Verfahren ist hierbei im Vergleich wenig kostenintensiv und daher weit verbreitet. Für das robotorassistierte, kostenintensive Vorgehen gilt es anhand der Literatur zu eruieren, ob Vorteile gegenüber der klassischen Laparoskopie zu finden sind, von denen der Patient profitiert.

Abstract

With increasing experience and availability of the da Vinci® robotic surgery system there has been an extension of the indications from initially exclusively ablative interventions, such as nephrectomy and radical prostatectomy to reconstructive interventions, such as pyeloplasty, bladder augmentation and urinary diversion. Laparocopic pyeloplasty has been established for both adults and children, with results comparable to the open procedure. In comparison the conventional laparoscopic procedure is little cost-intensive and therefore widely used. The available literature has to be analysed to find advantages for the cost-intensive, robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty from which patients can profit.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Anderson JC, Hynes W (1949) Retrocaval ureter:A case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol 21(3):209–214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. O’Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S et al (2001). The long term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int 87(4):287–289

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chandhoke PS, Clayman RV, Stone RM et al (1993). Endopyelotomy and and ureterotomy with the acucise ureteral cutting balloon device: preliminary experience. J Endourol 7(1):45–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Badlani G, Eshghi M, Smith AD (1986). Percutaneous surgery for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: technique and early results. J Urol 135(1):26–28

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gettman MT, Lotan Y, Roerhborn CG et al (2003) Cost-effective treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a decision tree analysis. J Urol 169(1):228–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Eden CG (2007). Minimal invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a critical analysis of results. Eur Urol 52(4):983–987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Cangh PJ, Wiltmart JF, Opsomer RJ et al (1994). Long-term results and late recurrence after endoureteropyelotomy: a critical analysis of prognostic factors. J Urol 151(4):934–937

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV et al (1993). Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 150:1795–1799

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Adeyoju AB, Hrouda D, Gill IS (2004). Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first decade. BJU Int 94:264–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Peters CA, Schlussel RN, Retik AB (1995). Pediatric laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 153:1962–1965

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Metzelder ML, Schier F, Peterson C et al (2006) Laparoscopic transabdominal pyeloplasty in children is feasible irrespective of age. J Urol 175:688–691

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Braga LHP, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ (2009). Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect of operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications and success rate. Eur Urol 56:848–858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mei H, Pu J, Yang Ch et al (2011). Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 25(5):727–736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wolf JS (2011). Laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty. J Endourol 25(2):173–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stolzenburg J-U, Türk IA, Liatsikos EN (2011) Laparoskopische und roboterassistierte Chirugie in der Urologie. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  16. Chow K, Adeyoju AB (2011) National practice and outcome of laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the United Kingdom. J Endourol 25(4):657–662

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Janetschek G, Peschel R, Bartsch G (2000). Laparoscopic Fenger plasty. J Endourol 14(10):889–893

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charumbura TC et al (2002) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. J Urol 167:1253–1253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Poulakis V, Witzsch U, Schultheiss D et al (2004) Die Geschichte der operativen Behandlung der Harnleiterabgangsstenose (Pyeloplastik). Von Trendelenburg (1886) bis zur Gegenwart. Urologe A 43:1544–1559

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Juliano RV, Mendonca RR, Meyer F et al (2001). Long-term outcome of laparoscopic pyeloplysty: Multicentric comparative study of techniques and accesses. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 21(5):399–403

    Google Scholar 

  21. Giri SH, Murph D, Costello AJ, Moon DA (2011) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty outcomes of elderly patients. J Endourol 25(2):251–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Seixas-Mikelas SA, Jenkins LC, Williot P, Greenfield SP (2009). Pediatric pyeloplasty: Comparison of literature meta-analysis of laparoscopic and open techniquees with open surgery at a single institution. J Urol 182(5):2428–2434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ong AM et al (2005) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: curent status. BJU Int 95(Suppl 2):102–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Janetschek G (2006) Rekonstruktive laparoskopische Eingriffe in der Urologie. Urologe 45(9):1127–1134

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Peters CA (2011) Pediatric robot-assisted pyeloplasty. J Endourol 25(2):179–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bhayani SB, Link RE, Varkarakis JM, Kavoussi LR (2005). Complete daVinci ( SUP ( TM ( /SUP ( versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. J Endourol 19(3):327–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hakenberg O (2010) Ein Leben ohne Roboter. Was bleibt dem Urologen? Urologe 49(8):922–924

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG et al (1999) Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol 162(3):692–695

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Klingler HC, Remzi M, Kratzik C et al (2003). Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in teratment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 44(3):340–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Turk IA, Davis JW, Winkelmann B et al (2002) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty – the method of choice in the presence of an enlarged renal pelvis and crossing vessels. Eur Urol 42(3):268–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Moon DA, El-Shazly, Chang CM et al (2006) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: evolution of a new gold standard. Urology 67(5):932–936

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Symons SJ, Bhirud PS, Jain V et al (2009). Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Our new gold standard. J Endourol 23(3):463–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Imkamp F, Hermann TR, Rassweiler J et al (2009) Laparoscopy in German urology: changing acceptance among urologists. Eur Urol 56(6):1074–1080

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urologische Klinik, Städtisches Klinikum, Moltkestraße 90, 76133, Karlsruhe, Deutschland

    P. Bader

Authors
  1. P. Bader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Bader.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bader, P. Nierenbeckenplastik – pro laparoskopisch. Urologe 51, 633–639 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-012-2860-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-012-2860-3

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation