Introduction: To compare the effect of a modified antegrade and retrograde double-J stenting techniques on stenting and operation time in patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic pyeloplasty. Methods: A total of 74 patients undergoing transperitoneal laparoscopic or robotic pyeloplasty were enrolled into this study. The antegrade (Group 1) and retrograde (Group 2) techniques were compared for operation time, stenting time, complication, and reoperation rates. Results: There were 41 and 33 patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Both groups were similar in terms of age, side, and gender distribution. The mean operation times were 122.4 and 139.7 min in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p < 0.001). The stenting times were 2.39 and 14.15 min in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p < 0.001). The reoperation and complication rates were 7.3 and 6%, respectively, and similar for both groups (p = 1). Conclusions: Our new technique significantly shortens the duration of laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty without compromising success and complication rates.

Keywords:
Laparoscopy, Robotic, Pyeloplasty, Double-J, Stent
1.
Viprakasit DP, Altamar HO, Miller NL, Herrell SD. Intraoperative retrograde ureteral stent placement and manipulation during laparoscopic pyeloplasty without need for patient repositioning.
J Endourol
. 2010 Oct;24(10):1571–4.
2.
Gaitonde K, Roesel G, Donovan J. Novel technique of retrograde ureteral stenting during laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
J Endourol
. 2008 Jun;22(6):1199–202.
3.
Arumainayagam N, Minervini A, Davenport K, Kumar V, Masieri L, Serni S, et al. Antegrade versus retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
J Endourol
. 2008 Apr;22(4):671–4.
4.
Kalkan S, Ersöz C, Armagan A, Taşçı Aİ, Silay MS. A Modified Antegrade Stenting Technique for Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Infants and Children.
Urol Int
. 2016;96(2):183–7.
5.
Zoeller C, Lacher M, Ure B, Petersen C, Kuebler JF. Double J or transrenal transanastomotic stent in laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants and children: a comparative study and our technique.
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A
. 2014 Mar;24(3):205–9.
6.
Chen Z, Chen X, Luo YC. Technical modifications of double-J stenting for retroperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children under 5 years old.
PLoS One
. 2011;6(8):e23073.
7.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.
Ann Surg
. 2004 Aug;240(2):205–13.
8.
Defidio L, Di Pinto A. [Anterograde and retrograde ureteral stent placement using fluoroscopic guidance with a radio-opaque pusher]. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2002 Jun;74(2):86–9.
9.
Kocherov S, Lev G, Chertin L, Chertin B. Extracorporeal Ureteric Stenting for Pediatric Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty.
Eur J Pediatr Surg
. 2016 Apr;26(2):203–6.
10.
Mandhani A, Goel S, Bhandari M. Is antegrade stenting superior to retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty?
J Urol
. 2004 Apr;171(4):1440–2.
11.
Bolat MS, Çınar Ö, Akdeniz E. Does antegrade JJ stenting affect the total operative time during laparoscopic pyeloplasty?
Turk J Urol
. 2017 Dec;43(4):497–501.
12.
Minervini A, Siena G, Masieri L, Lapini A, Serni S, Carini M. Antegrade stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty: feasibility of the technique and time required for stent insertion.
Surg Endosc
. 2009 Aug;23(8):1831–4.
13.
Chandrasekharam VV. Is retrograde stenting more reliable than antegrade stenting for pyeloplasty in infants and children?
Urology
. 2005 Dec;66(6):1301–4; discussion 1304.
14.
Elmalik K, Chowdhury MM, Capps SN. Ureteric stents in pyeloplasty: a help or a hindrance?
J Pediatr Urol
. 2008 Aug;4(4):275–9.
15.
El-Ghoneimi A, Farhat W, Bolduc S, Bagli D, McLorie G, Khoury A. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty by a retroperitoneal approach in children.
BJU Int
. 2003;91(6):532–5.
16.
Derouiche A, El Atat R, Ben Slama MR, -Chebil M. Endoscopic bridge operating-guide device applied for intracorporeal antegrade ureteric stenting during laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
J Endourol
. 2009 Nov;23(11):1871–4.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.