Transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: brazilian initial experience with 55 cases

PURPOSE: To evaluate prospectively the results obtained in 55 patients undergoing laparoscopic pyeloplasty through transperitoneal access. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2005 to July 2009, fifty-five patients between 13 and 64 years old, were treated for ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) stenosis via a transperitoneal laparoscopy. All patients had clinical symptoms of high urinary obstruction and hydronephrosis confirmed by imaging methods. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty was performed in 51 patients and Fenger technique in the other 4 cases. Patients were clinically and imaging evaluated in the postoperative period at 3 and 6 months and then followed-up annually. RESULTS: The operative time ranged from 95 to 270 min. The mean hospital stay was 2 days. The average blood loss was 170 mL. The time to return to normal activities ranged from 10 to 28 days. Anomalous vessels were identified in 27 patients, intrinsic stenosis in 23 patients and 5 patients had high implantation of the ureter. Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy was successfully performed in 6 patients with associated renal stones. That series monitoring ranged from 1 to 55 months. One patient had longer urinary fistula (11 days), 3 patients had portal infection and 6 patients had prolonged ileus. There was one conversion due to technical difficulties. From the later postoperative complications, 2 patients had re-stenosis, one determined by Anderson-Hynes technique and the other by Fenger technique. The success rate was 95.65 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty has functional results comparable to conventional open technique. It offers less morbidity, with aesthetic and post-operative convalescence benefits and lower complication rates.

Preliminary experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy through duplication of the open technique

OBJECTIVE: To describe surgical and functional results with extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with duplication of the open technique, from the experience obtained in the treatment of 28 initial cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 36-month period, we prospectively analyzed 28 patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer undergoing extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Mean surgical time was 280 min, with mean blood loss of 320 mL. As intraoperative complications, there were 2 rectal lesions repaired with laparoscopic suture in 2 planes. There was no conversion to open surgery. Median hospital stay was 3 days, with return to oral diet in the first post-operative day in patients. As post-operative complications, there were 3 cases of extraperitoneal urinary fistula. Two of these cases were resolved by maintaining a Foley catheter for 21 days, and the other one by late endoscopic reintervention for repositioning the catheter. Five out of 18 previously potent patients evolved with erectile dysfunction. The diagnosis of prostate cancer was confirmed in all patients, with focal positive margin occurring in 3 cases. During a mean follow-up of 18 months, 2 patients presented increased PSA, with no clinical evidence of disease. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a laborious and difficult procedure, with a long learning curve. Extraperitoneal access is feasible, and it is possible to practically duplicate the principles of open surgery. The present technique can possibly offer advantages in terms of decreased blood loss, preservation of erectile function and prevention of positive margins.