0
0
0
0
Smart Citations
0
0
0
0
Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

Mini-invasive robotic assisted pyelolithotomy: Comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach

Authors

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.

Downloads

Citations

Crossref
4
Scopus
0
Li Wang, Si-Yu Chen, Fan-Qi Wu, Shun Wan, Kun-Peng Li, Xiao-Ran Li (2024)
Robotic pyelolithotomy for treating large renal stone disease: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 18(1),
10.1007/s11701-024-02064-9
Murat Can KİREMİT, Yakup KORDAN (2023)
Kompleks Üst Üriner Sistem Taş Tedavisinde Robotik Cerrahinin Rolü: Tek Merkez Deneyimi. Endouroloji Bulteni, 146.
10.54233/endouroloji.20231503-1350321
Stefano MORETTO, Michele ZAZZARA, Filippo MARINO, Arjan NAZARAJ, Marcello SCARCIA, Giuseppe M. LUDOVICO (2024)
Robotic pyelolithotomy for the treatment of large renal stones: a single-center experience over seven years. Minerva Medica, 115(5),
10.23736/S0026-4806.24.09291-7
Stefano MORETTO, Michele ZAZZARA, Filippo MARINO, Mauro RAGONESE, Marcello SCARCIA, Ugo GRADILONE, Pierluigi RUSSO, Marco MONTESI, Nicolò LENTINI, Roberta PASTORINO, Giuseppe M. LUDOVICO, Francesco PINTO (2025)
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. robotic pyelolithotomy for large renal stones: an inverse probability treatment weighting analysis. Minerva Urology and Nephrology, 76(6),
10.23736/S2724-6051.24.06074-9

How to Cite

D’Agostino, D., Corsi, P., Giampaoli, M., Mineo Bianchi, F., Romagnoli, D., Crivellaro, S., Saraceni, G., Garofalo, M., Schiavina, R., Brunocilla, E., Artibani, W., & Porreca, A. (2019). Mini-invasive robotic assisted pyelolithotomy: Comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 91(2). https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2019.2.107