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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: 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
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