Comparative analysis of suturing technique in pediatric pyeloplasty on surgical outcomes.
Kidney
Outcome
Pyeloplasty
Sutures
Journal
Pediatric surgery international
ISSN: 1437-9813
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Surg Int
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8609169
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
accepted:
30
06
2021
pubmed:
7
7
2021
medline:
21
10
2021
entrez:
6
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction is the gold standard for surgical repair. There are currently no reports outlining optimal suturing technique. This paper compares the effect of suturing technique in dismembered pediatric pyeloplasty (open and laparoscopic) on post-operative outcomes. A non-concurrent cohort study assessed different suturing techniques in both open and laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty performed two senior urologists at a tertiary referral pediatric center. Cases were stratified according to different suturing techniques for ureteropelvic anastomosis and subgroup analysis was performed according to open or laparoscopic approach. A total of 185 renal units were evaluated. The overall comparative analysis of different anastomotic suturing techniques and clustered analysis according to open and laparoscopic approach showed no significant differences on post-operative complication rate, leakage, stenosis, redo-pyeloplasties, operative time and hospital stay. There was a significant difference between suturing techniques on stent duration, age and weight of the patient. There was no effect of suture type or size on post-operative complication rate, leakage, UPJ stenosis and redo pyeloplasty rates, however, sample sizes were small. Suturing technique has no significant effect on the surgical outcomes assessed regardless of open or laparoscopic technique.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34228166
doi: 10.1007/s00383-021-04960-9
pii: 10.1007/s00383-021-04960-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1633-1637Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Liang CC, Cheng PJ, Lin CJ et al (2002) Outcome of prenatally diagnosed fetal hydronephrosis. J Reprod Med Obstet Gynecol 47:27–32
Subramaniam R, Kouriefs C, Dickson AP (1999) Antenatally detected pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction: Concerns about conservative management. BJU Int 84:335–338
doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00201.x
Seixas-Mikelus S, Jenkins L, PW-TJ of et al: Pediatric pyeloplasty: comparison of literature meta-analysis of laparoscopic and open techniques with open surgery at a single institution. Elsevier. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022534709017807 . Accessed 14 June 2020
Braga LHP, Lorenzo AJ, Bägli DJ et al (2010) Comparison of flank, dorsal lumbotomy and laparoscopic approaches for dismembered pyeloplasty in children older than 3 years with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 183:306–311
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.09.008
Gatti JM, Amstutz SP, Bowlin PR et al (2017) Laparoscopic vs open pyeloplasty in children: results of a randomized, prospective. Control Trial J Urol 197:792–797
Sharifiaghdas F, Mirzaei M, Daneshpajooh A et al (2019) Minimally invasive open dismembered pyeloplasty technique: miniature incision, muscle-splitting dissection, and nopelvis reduction in children. Asian J Urol 6:290–293
doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.08.001
Sutherland RW, Chung SK, Roth DR, Gonzales ET (1997) Pediatric pyeloplasty: outcome analysis based on patient age and surgical technique. Urology 50:963–966
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00397-X
Ramalingam M, Kallappan S, Nachimuthu S (2018) A prospective comparative study of continuous and interrupted suturing in laparoscopic pyeloplasty in 3D Era. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 28:1275–1278
doi: 10.1089/lap.2018.0203
Ramalingam M, Murugesan A, Senthil K, Pai MG (2014) A comparison of continuous and interrupted suturing in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. JSLS 18(2):294–300. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680813X13753907291873
doi: 10.4293/108680813X13753907291873
pubmed: 24960496
pmcid: 4035643