Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique (SMART) pyeloplasty in adult patients: comparison of cosmetic and post-operative pain outcomes in a matched-pair analysis with standard retroperitoneoscopy: preliminary report

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To present small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique pyeloplasty (SMARTp), a novel mini-laparoscopic approach for management of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in adults including comparison with the standard retroperitoneoscopic technique (SRTp).

Methods

In a non-randomised study, we matched 12 adult patients treated from August to November 2010 by SMARTp with 12 patients treated with SRTp from January to November 2010. Mini-laparoscopic retroperitoneal space was created with a home-made 6-mm balloon trocar. One 6-mm (for 5-mm 30° telescope) and two 3.5-mm trocars (for 3-mm working instrument) were used. SRTp was performed with 11- and 6-mm trocar. Primary endpoints included evaluation of cosmetic appearance and post-operative pain evaluated respectively by the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) and analogue visual scale (VAS). Secondary endpoints were comparison between operative and functional parameters.

Results

Cosmetic cumulative results were statistically significant in favour of SMARTp (POSAS: 37.9 vs. 52.4; P = 0.002). A better trend has been shown by post-operative pain (first to fourth day VAS), although not statistically significant (4.2 vs. 4.9, P = 0.891). No differences were recorded in terms of operative time, pre- and post-operative Hb difference, DJ-stent removal and resistive index (RI) improvement. The SMARTp group showed a faster drain removal (2.4 vs. 3.4 day, P = 0.004) and discharge (4.5 vs. 5.4 day P = 0.017).

Conclusions

Preliminary data support SMARTp as safe procedures in experienced hands, providing better cosmetic results compared to SRTp. Further studies and clinical randomised trial performed in a larger population sample are requested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BMI:

Body mass index

LESS:

Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery

ML:

Mini-laparoscopy

NOTES:

Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery

OSAS:

Observer scar assessment scale

POSAS:

Patient and observer scar assessment scale

PSAS:

Patient scar assessment scale

RI:

Resistive index

SMART:

Small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique

SMARTp:

Small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique pyeloplasty

SRT:

Standard retroperitoneoscopic technique

SRTp:

Standard retroperitoneoscopic technique pyeloplasty

UPJ:

Uretero-pyelic junction

UPJO:

Uretero-pyelic junction obstruction

VAS:

Visual analogue scale

References

  1. Box G, Averch T, Cadeddu J et al (2008) Nomenclature of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) procedures in urology. J Endourol 22(11):2575–2581. doi:10.1089/end.2008.0471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Autorino R, Stein RJ, Lima E, Damiano R, Khanna R, Haber GP, White MA, Kaouk JH (2010) Current status and future perspectives in laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic urological surgery. Int J Urol 17:410–431. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2042.2010.02497.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Micali S, Isgrò G, De Stefani S, Pini G, Sighinolfi MC, Bianchi G (2010) Retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: preliminary experience in kidney and ureteral. Eur Urol 59(1):164–167. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rassweiler JJ (2011) Is LESS/NOTES really more? Eur Urol 59:46–50. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McSwain NE Jr (1977) Visual examination for blunt abdominal trauma. JACEP 6(2):56–57

    Google Scholar 

  6. Subotic S, Schulze M, Gozen A, Rassweiler JJ, Teber D (2008) Experience with laparoscopic pyeloplasty for treating ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: technique and results. Urologe A 47:718–723. doi:10.1007/s00120-008-1692-7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rassweiler JJ, Teber D, Frede T (2008) Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. World J Urol 26:539–547. doi:10.1007/s00345-008-0266-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach D et al (2005) Advantages of mini-laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 140:1178–1183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Morra I, Scarpa RM (2010) Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery–assisted minilaparoscopic nephrectomy: a step towards scarless surgery. Eur Urol. Accepted 30 Sept, Published online ahead of print on October 8 (in press). doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.09.038

  10. Rassweiler JJ, Henkel TO, Stock CH, Greschner M, Becker P, Premingen GM, Schulman CC, Frede T, Alken P (1994) Retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy and other procedures in the upper retroperitoneum using a balloon dissection technique. Eur Urol 25:229–236. doi:0302-28238/94/0253-0229

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FRH, Botman YAM et al (2004) The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1960–1965. doi:10.1097/01.PRS.0000122207.28773.56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Micali S, Pini G, Teber D, Sighinolfi MC, De Stefani S, Bianchi G, Rassweiler J (2010) New trends in minimally invasive urological surgery. What is beyond the robot? World J Urol [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1007/s00345-010-0588-5

  13. Autorino R, Cadeddu JA, Desai MM, Gettman M, Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Lima E, Montorsi F, Richstone L, Stolzenburg JU, Kaouk JH (2011) Laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in urology: a critical analysis of the literature 59(1):26–45. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.030

  14. Gill IS (2001) Needlescopic urology: current status. Urol Clin North Am 28:71–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Porpiglia F, e Fiori C (2010) Mini-laparoscopy in urology: current indications and future perspective. Terminology. Endo Press, Tuttlingen, p 6

    Google Scholar 

  16. Soble JJ, Gill IS (1998) Needlescopic urology: incorporating 2-mm instruments in laparoscopic surgery. Urology 52:187–194

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tan HL (2001) Laproscopic Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children using needlescopic instrumentation. Urol Clin North Am 28:43–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gaur D (1992) Laparoscopic operative retroperitoneoscopy. J Urol 148:1137–1139

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gaur DD, Gopischand M, Dubey M, Jhunjhunwala V (2002) Mini-access for retroperitoneal laparoscopy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 12:313–315

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rassweiler J, Frede T, Henkel TO, Stock C, Alken P (1998) Nephrectomy: a comparative study between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus the open approach. Eur Urol 33(5):489–496

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Imkamp F, Herrmann TR, Rassweiler J, Sulser T, Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Jonas U, Burchardt M (2009) Laparoscopy in German urology: changing acceptance among urologists. Eur Urol 56(6):1074–1080. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008/09.064

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Thakur V, Schlachta CM, Jayaraman S (2011) Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 253(2):244–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fearmonti R, Bond J, Erdmann D, Levinson H (2010) A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty 10:e43

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rassweiler J, Pini G, Gözen AS, Klein J, Teber D (2010) Role of laparoscopy in reconstructive surgery. Curr Opin Urol 20:471–482. doi:10.1097/MOU.0b013e32833fd

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Haber GP, Autorino R, Laydner H, Yang B, White MA, Hillyer S, Altunrende F, Khanna R, Spana G, Wahib I, Fareed K, Stein RJ, Kaouk JH (2011) SPIDER surgical system for urologic procedures with laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: from initial laboratory experience to first clinical application. Eur Urol [Epub ahead of print]

  26. Haber GP, White MA, Autorino R, Escobar PF, Kroh MD, Chalikonda S, Khanna R, Forest S, Yang B, Altunrende F, Stein RJ, Kaouk JH (2010) Novel robotic da Vinci instruments for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. Urology 76:1279–1282. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.06.070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Authors have no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, SLK Kliniken Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg, Am Gesundbrunnen 20-24, 74078, Heilbronn, Germany

    Giovannalberto Pini, Ali Serdar Goezen, Michael Schulze, Marcel Hruza, Jan Klein & Jens Jochen Rassweiler

Authors
  1. Giovannalberto Pini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Serdar Goezen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Schulze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcel Hruza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jan Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jens Jochen Rassweiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jens Jochen Rassweiler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pini, G., Goezen, A.S., Schulze, M. et al. Small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique (SMART) pyeloplasty in adult patients: comparison of cosmetic and post-operative pain outcomes in a matched-pair analysis with standard retroperitoneoscopy: preliminary report. World J Urol 30, 605–611 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0740-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0740-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation