Defining success in laparoscopic pyeloplasty

British Journal of Medical and Surgical Urology

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 108-112

  Ramsden, Alistair ^a   Rainsbury, Paul ^a   Sells, Henry ^a  

^a DERRIFORD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Laparoscopy; Outcomes; Pyeloplasty; Research governance

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PYELOPLASTY; RENOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79953032373     PISSN: 18759742     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjmsu.2010.08.002     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Klinger H.C., Remzi M., Janetschek G. Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in the treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2003, 44:340-345.
2. Calvert R.C., Morsy M.M., Zelhof B. Comparison of laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in 100 patients with pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Surg Endosc 2007, 22:411-414.
3. Bauer J.J., Bishoff J.T., Moore R.G. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol 1999, 162(3 Pt1):692-695.
4. Maynes L.J., Levin B.M., Webster T.M. Measuring the true success of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2008, 22(6):1193-1198.
5. Madi R., Roberts W.W., Wolf J.S. Late failures after laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Urology 2008, 71(4):677-680.
6. Mitre A.I., Brito A.H., Srougi M. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in 47 cases. Clinics 2008, 63(5).
7. Davenport K., Minervini A., Timoney A.G. Our experience with retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2005, 48:973-977.
8. Moon D.A., El-Shazly M.A., Chang C.M. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: evolution of a new gold standard. Adult Urol 2006, 67:932-936.
9. Shoma A.M., El Nahas A.R., Bazeed M.A. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a prospective randomized comparison between the transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneoscopy. J Urol 2007, 178(5):2020-2024.
10. Yanke B.V., Lallas C.D., Pagnani C. The minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a review of our experience during the last decade. J Urol 2008, 180(4):1387-1402.
11. Dong J., Wong J., Al-Enerzi A. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the updated McMaster University experience. CIAJ 2008, 2(4):388-392.
12. Ost M.C., Kaye J.D., Guttman M.J. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus antegrade endopyelotomy:comparison in 100 patients and a new algorithm for the minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 2005, 66(Suppl. 5A):47-51.
13. Inagaki T., Rha K.H., Ong A.M. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. BJU Int 2005, 95(Suppl. 2):102-105.
14. Turk I.A., Davis J.W., Winkelman B. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty-the method of choice in the presence of an enlarged renal pelvis and crossing vessels. Eur Urol 2002, 42:268-275.
15. Moore R.G., Averch T.D., Schulam P.G. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty-experience with the initial 30 cases. J Urol 1997, 157(2):459-462.