Search

Context: Over the last two decades, minimally invasive treatment options for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) have been developed and popularized., Objective: To critically analyze the current status of laparoscopic and robotic repair of UPJO., Evidence Acquisition: A systematic literature review was performed in November 2012 using PubMed. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses criteria., Evidence Synthesis: Multiple series of laparoscopic pyeloplasty have demonstrated high success rates and low perioperative morbidity in pediatric and adult populations, with both the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. Data on pediatric robot-assisted pyeloplasty are increasingly becoming available. A larger number of cases have also been reported for adult patients, confirming that robotic pyeloplasty represents a viable option for either primary or secondary repair. Robot-assisted redo pyeloplasty has been mostly described in the pediatric population. Different technical variations have been implemented with the aim of tailoring the procedure to each specific case. The type of stenting, retrograde versus antegrade, continues to be debated. Internal-external stenting as well as a stentless approach have been used, especially in the pediatric population. Comparative studies demonstrate similar success and complication rates between minimally invasive and open pyeloplasty in both the adult and pediatric setting. A clear advantage in terms of hospital stay for minimally invasive over open pyeloplasty was observed only in the adult population., Conclusions: Laparoscopy represents an efficient and effective less invasive alternative to open pyeloplasty. Robotic pyeloplasty is likely to emerge as the new minimally invasive standard of care whenever robotic technology is available because its precise suturing and shorter learning curve represent unique attractive features. For both laparoscopy and robotics, the technique can be tailored to the specific case according to intraoperative findings and personal surgical experience., (Copyright © 2013 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The true incidence of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is unknown. Our aim was to determine the incidence of symptomatic DVT and PE and the risk factors for these complications., Methods: Fourteen surgeons from 13 referral institutions from both Europe and the United States provided retrospective data for all 5951 patients treated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), with or without robotic assistance, since the start of their institution's experience. Symptomatic DVT and PE within 90 d of surgery were regarded as venous thromboembolism (VTE). DVT was diagnosed mostly by Doppler ultrasound or contrast venography and PE by lung ventilation/perfusion scan or chest computed tomography or both. Statistical analysis included evaluation of incidence of symptomatic DVT and PE and risk factors as determined by exact methods and logistic regression., Results: Of 5951 patients in the study, 31 developed symptomatic VTE (0.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4%, 0.7%). Among patients with an event, 22 (71%) had DVT only, 4 had PE without identified DVT, and 5 had both. Two patients died of PE. Prior DVT (odds ratio [OR]=13.5; 95%CI, 1.4, 61.3), current tobacco smoking (OR=2.8; 95%CI, 1.0, 7.3), larger prostate volume (OR=1.18; 95%CI, 1.09, 1.28), patient re-exploration (OR=20.6; 95%CI, 6.6, 54.0), longer operative time (OR=1.05; 95%CI, 1.02, 1.09), and longer hospital stay (OR=1.05; 95%CI, 1.01, 1.09) were associated with VTE in univariate analysis. Neoadjuvant therapy, body mass index, surgical experience, surgical approach, pathologic stage, perioperative transfusion, and heparin administration were not significant predictors., Conclusions: The incidence of symptomatic VTE after LRP is low. These data do not support the administration of prophylactic heparin to all patients undergoing LRP, especially those without risk factors for VTE.

Objectives: Large prostates can be challenging to remove during open or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). Our objective was to critically analyse the impact of prostate volume in LRP., Methods: 400 cases of LRP were performed. Three hundred and fourteen patients had a small prostate (weight < 75 g) and 86 patients had a large prostate (weight > or = 75 g) on final histology. The following outcomes were assessed: operative time; estimated blood loss (EBL); transfusion rate; length of hospital stay (LOS); length of catheterisation; perioperative and postoperative complications (including incontinence and erectile dysfunction); surgical margin status; and early biochemical recurrence rates., Results: Patients' age, PSA, Gleason sum and clinical stage were all similar. Larger prostates were associated with a 14 minutes longer mean operating time (p < 0.001), but fewer positive surgical margins (p = 0.01). Blood loss, blood transfusion rate, length of hospital stay, length of catheterisation and complication rate were all similar in both groups., Conclusions: Prostate size should not be a factor determining a patient's suitability for LRP. Further follow-up is needed to assess the effect of prostate size on long-term functional and oncological results.