You have accessJournal of UrologyTechnology & Instruments: Robotics - Malignant Disease & Benign Disease I1 Apr 20121221 A CONTEMPORARY ANALYSIS OF SUCCESS RATES AND RISK FACTORS FOR FAILURE OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE URETERAL REIMPLANTATION VS. OPEN URETERAL REIMPLANTATION Taylor Vaughan, Eric Rovner, Jonathan Picard, and Stephen Savage Taylor VaughanTaylor Vaughan Charleston, SC More articles by this author , Eric RovnerEric Rovner Charleston, SC More articles by this author , Jonathan PicardJonathan Picard Charleston, SC More articles by this author , and Stephen SavageStephen Savage Charleston, SC More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.1511AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Minimally invasive (MIS) ureteral reimplantation has recently been documented as providing equivalent surgical outcomes when compared to open surgery. Although feasible, it is unclear how well this compares to a contemporary open approach or what factors may suggest that an open approach is preferred. The goal of this study is to evaluate outcomes after MIS and open ureteral reimplantation and identify preoperative factors to help guide selection of operative approach. METHODS A single institution, retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent either MIS (laparoscopic or robotic) or open ureteral reimplantation from 2004 through June 2011. Patients were separated into 2 groups defined by initial reimplant approach. Preoperative, perioperative and postoperative data were obtained and compared using student's t tests. A subsequent analysis was performed evaluating patients who required re-operation. Preoperative data were used in attempt to identify independent risk factors for re-operation. RESULTS From 2004 through June 2011, 12 patients underwent MIS ureteral reimplant and 30 underwent open surgery. Preoperative characteristics revealed patients selected to undergo MIS were significantly older (52.5 vs. 43.9 p≤0.05) vs. those who underwent open surgery. Additionally, the MIS group had a longer time from diagnosis to operation (23.9 vs. 7.3 months p≤0.05) and higher rates of ability to stent the pathologic ureter preoperatively (83% vs. 54% p≤0.05). Those who underwent MIS had less estimated blood loss (EBL) (149 vs. 261cc p≤0.05), lower perioperative complication rates (17% vs. 50% p≤0.05), and shorter hospital stay (2.8 vs. 5.8d p≤0.05). Patients in the MIS group did experience a higher need for future reoperation (25% vs. 0% p≤0.005). On secondary analysis of the MIS group, BMI was found to be an independent predictor of patients requiring re-operation (35.5 vs. 25.9 kg p≤0.005). CONCLUSIONS MIS ureteral reimplantation was shown in this study to result in less EBL, lower perioperative complication rates and shorter hospital stays. Higher re-operation rates were seen in the MIS group and BMI >30 was one factor contributing to this result. Problems with this study may include a potential selection bias in which patients undergo MIS vs. open surgery and the etiology of their ureteral injury. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e494 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Taylor Vaughan Charleston, SC More articles by this author Eric Rovner Charleston, SC More articles by this author Jonathan Picard Charleston, SC More articles by this author Stephen Savage Charleston, SC More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract