FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2479681009> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2479681009 endingPage "401.e6" @default.
• W2479681009 startingPage "401.e1" @default.
• W2479681009 abstract "Recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in children is an operative challenge. Minimally invasive endourological treatment options for secondary UPJO have suboptimal success rates; hence, there is a re-emergence of interest about redo pyeloplasty. The present study presented experience with laparoscopic management of previously failed pyeloplasty compared with open redo pyeloplasty in children.Twenty-four children with recurrent UPJO who underwent transperitoneal dismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasty were studied. Operative, postoperative, and follow-up functional details were recorded and compared with those of open pyeloplasty (n = 15) carried out for recurrent UPJO by the same surgeon during the same study period.Demographic data were comparable in the laparoscopic and open groups, except for a significantly lower GFR in the open group (24.8 vs 38.2 ml/min, P = 0.0001). Mean time to failure of the original repair was 20.2 months (23.6 months for redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty, 18.8 months for redo open). The success rate of laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty was 91.7 vs 100% in open redo pyeloplasty. Compared with redo open pyeloplasty, the mean operative time was longer (211.4 ± 32.2 vs 148.8 ± 16.6, P = 0.002), estimated blood loss was higher (102 vs 75 ml, P = 0.06), while hospital stay was shorter and pain score was lower in the laparoscopy group (P = 0.02) in the laparoscopic group. There were no intraoperative complications, while the postoperative complication rate was similar in the two groups (20.8 vs 20.0%).Before the laparoscopic approach became a viable option, endopyelotomy was widely used for managing recurrent UPJO. However, the success rate of endopyelotomy for secondary UPJO was approximately 10-25% lower than for open pyeloplasty. Redo pyeloplasty had excellent results, with reported success rates of 77.8-100%. Laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty is becoming a viable alternative to open redo pyeloplasty in many centers with experience in minimally invasive techniques. The present study revealed that redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty appeared to have advantages over redo open surgery, in that it was associated with shorter hospital stay (4 vs 6 days, P = 0.046), reduced postoperative pain score (P = 0.02), and less need for postoperative analgesia (P = 0.001), still with comparable successful outcomes and patient safety. However, the procedure had a longer operative times and more blood loss.Laparoscopic pyeloplasty is a viable alternative to open pyeloplasty in children with recurrent UPJO, with shorter hospital stays and less postoperative pain. However, the procedure is technically demanding and should be attempted in high-volume centers by laparoscopists with considerable experience in laparoscopic reconstructive procedures." @default.
• W2479681009 created "2016-08-23" @default.
• W2479681009 creator A5027307503 @default.
• W2479681009 creator A5034201266 @default.
• W2479681009 creator A5035146195 @default.
• W2479681009 creator A5038802753 @default.
• W2479681009 creator A5051147316 @default.
• W2479681009 creator A5069367517 @default.
• W2479681009 creator A5072347753 @default.
• W2479681009 date "2016-12-01" @default.
• W2479681009 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2479681009 title "Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus open pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children" @default.
• W2479681009 cites W1506575621 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W1549316959 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W1573500324 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W1686723526 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W1975995706 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W1988527408 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2001643194 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2019522133 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2028647660 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2050242560 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2050414615 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2055098884 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2061451732 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2073781869 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2076072815 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2087750163 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2090942266 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2092336316 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2095416192 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2138794390 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2155411531 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2402801182 @default.
• W2479681009 cites W2415990836 @default.
• W2479681009 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.06.010" @default.
• W2479681009 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27614698" @default.
• W2479681009 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2479681009 type Work @default.
• W2479681009 sameAs 2479681009 @default.
• W2479681009 citedByCount "27" @default.
• W2479681009 countsByYear W24796810092017 @default.
• W2479681009 countsByYear W24796810092018 @default.
• W2479681009 countsByYear W24796810092019 @default.
• W2479681009 countsByYear W24796810092020 @default.
• W2479681009 countsByYear W24796810092021 @default.
• W2479681009 countsByYear W24796810092022 @default.
• W2479681009 countsByYear W24796810092023 @default.
• W2479681009 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2479681009 hasAuthorship W2479681009A5027307503 @default.
• W2479681009 hasAuthorship W2479681009A5034201266 @default.
• W2479681009 hasAuthorship W2479681009A5035146195 @default.
• W2479681009 hasAuthorship W2479681009A5038802753 @default.
• W2479681009 hasAuthorship W2479681009A5051147316 @default.
• W2479681009 hasAuthorship W2479681009A5069367517 @default.
• W2479681009 hasAuthorship W2479681009A5072347753 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConcept C2777626661 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConcept C2779863012 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConcept C2780047204 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConcept C2781040948 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConcept C3018900477 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConcept C77411442 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConceptScore W2479681009C126322002 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConceptScore W2479681009C141071460 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConceptScore W2479681009C2777626661 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConceptScore W2479681009C2779863012 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConceptScore W2479681009C2780047204 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConceptScore W2479681009C2781040948 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConceptScore W2479681009C3018900477 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConceptScore W2479681009C61434518 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConceptScore W2479681009C71924100 @default.
• W2479681009 hasConceptScore W2479681009C77411442 @default.
• W2479681009 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2479681009 hasLocation W24796810091 @default.
• W2479681009 hasLocation W24796810092 @default.
• W2479681009 hasOpenAccess W2479681009 @default.
• W2479681009 hasPrimaryLocation W24796810091 @default.
• W2479681009 hasRelatedWork W100019178 @default.
• W2479681009 hasRelatedWork W1991601359 @default.
• W2479681009 hasRelatedWork W2182639496 @default.
• W2479681009 hasRelatedWork W2266855515 @default.
• W2479681009 hasRelatedWork W2268579708 @default.
• W2479681009 hasRelatedWork W2378203379 @default.
• W2479681009 hasRelatedWork W2479681009 @default.
• W2479681009 hasRelatedWork W2536390356 @default.
• W2479681009 hasRelatedWork W2757399389 @default.
• W2479681009 hasRelatedWork W4235342768 @default.
• W2479681009 hasVolume "12" @default.
• W2479681009 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2479681009 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2479681009 magId "2479681009" @default.
• W2479681009 workType "article" @default.