Short Stay Pyeloplasty With Transverse Dorsal Lumbotomy Incision: Our 10-Year Experience

Urology

Volumn 74, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1309-1312

  Önol, Fikret F ^a   Akbaş, Alpaslan ^b   Köse, Osman ^b   Önol, Şinasi Y ^b  

^a Sakarya Training and Research Hospital   (Turkey)

^b VAKIF GUREBA TRAINING AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; DORSAL LUMBOTOMY; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; HYDRONEPHROSIS; INFANT; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; INTRAVENOUS UROGRAPHY; KIDNEY FUNCTION; KIDNEY SCINTISCANNING; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEPHROLITHIASIS; OPERATION DURATION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PYELOPLASTY; RECURRENT DISEASE; RENOGRAPHY; SCHOOL CHILD; URETEROPELVIC JUNCTION OBSTRUCTION; URINALYSIS; UROLOGIC SURGERY;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT; KIDNEY PELVIS; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TIME FACTORS; URETERAL OBSTRUCTION; UROLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

EID: 70849130644     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: 15279995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.090     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Thomas J.C., DeMarco R.T., Donohue J.M., et al. Management of failed pyeloplasty: a contemporary review. J Urol. 174 (2005) 2363-2366
2. Braga L.H.P., Lorenzo A.J., Bagli D.J., et al. Risk factors for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after open pyeloplasty in a large pediatric cohort. J Urol. 180 (2008) 1684-1688
3. Yanke B.V., Lallas C.D., Pagnani C., et al. The minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a review of our experience during the last decade. J Urol. 180 (2008) 1397-1402
4. Troxel S., Das S., Helfer E., et al. Laparoscopy versus dorsal lumbotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair. J Urol. 176 (2006) 1073-1076
5. Piaggio L.A., Franc-Guimond J., Noh P.H., et al. Transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in infants and children: comparison with open surgery. J Urol. 178 (2007) 1579-1583
6. Vemulakonda V.M., Cowan C.A., Lendvay T.S., et al. Surgical management of congenital ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a pediatric health information system database study. J Urol. 180 (2008) 1689-1692
7. Chacko J.K., Koyle M.A., Mingin G.C., et al. Minimally invasive open renal surgery. J Urol. 178 (2007) 1575-1578
8. Kumar R., and Smith G. Dorsal lumbotomy for pediatric pyeloplasty-a good alternative. Pediatr Surg Int. 15 (1999) 562-564
9. Bajpai M., Kumar A., Tripathi M., et al. Dorsal lumbotomy incision in paediatric pyeloplasty. ANZ J Surg. 74 (2004) 491-494
10. Chamie K., Tanaka S.T., Hu B., et al. Short stay pyeloplasty: variables affecting pain and length of stay. J Urol. 179 (2008) 1549-1552
11. Gonzalez R., and Aliabadi H. Posterior lumbotomy in paediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol. 137 (1987) 468-470
12. Gil Vernet J. New surgical concepts in removing renal calculi. Urol Int. 20 (1965) 255-288
13. Choo K.L., and Borzi P.A. Surgical correction of pelviureteric junction obstruction in childhood-dorsal lumbotomy approach and selective internal ureteric stenting. Pediatr Surg Int. 17 (2001) 152-156
14. Smith K.E., Holmes N., Lieb J.I., et al. Stented versus nonstented pediatric pyeloplasty: a modern series and review of the literature. J Urol. 168 (2002) 1127-1130
15. Braga L.H.P., Lorenzo A.J., Farhat W.A., et al. Outcome analysis and cost comparison between externalized pyeloureteral and standard stents in 470 consecutive open pyeloplasties. J Urol. 180 (2008) 1693-1699