Assistant port is unnecessary for robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: a comparative cohort study

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridSILAY, MESRUR SELCUK/0000-0001-5091-9654
dc.authoridComez, Yusuf Ilker/0000-0002-0525-9578
dc.authoridDanacioglu, Yavuz Onur/0000-0002-3170-062X
dc.authoridGunaydin, Bilal/0000-0001-8135-8175
dc.authoridKeser, Ferhat/0000-0002-2803-6481
dc.contributor.authorDanacioglu, Yavuz Onur
dc.contributor.authorKeser, Ferhat
dc.contributor.authorPolat, Salih
dc.contributor.authorGunaydin, Bilal
dc.contributor.authorComez, Yusuf Ilker
dc.contributor.authorSilay, Mesrur Selcuk
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-07T13:35:12Z
dc.date.available2024-11-07T13:35:12Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.departmentNiğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractObjective To compare the postoperative outcomes including the cosmetic results of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) performed with and without assistant port in pediatric population. Methods 47 patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction consecutively underwent RALP were stratified as: three-port (Group 1, n = 26) and four-port (Group 2, n = 21). In Group 1, no assistant port was placed and double-J stent was introduced with the aid of an angiocatheter via the percutaneous route. In group 2, an assistant port was placed. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), the Vancouver Scar Scale(VSS), Satava, Clavien classification systems, and success rates were compared. Results We found similar success rates for both groups (group 1:96.2%, group 2:100%). Two groups were similar in terms of improvement in the postoperative anteroposterior diameter of the renal pelvis and parenchymal thickness. There was no difference in terms of perioperative and postoperative complication rates (group 1:19.2%, group 2:9.5%). The total PSAS was significantly lower in Group 1 (p < 0.008). No difference was observed for VSS and OSAS. Conclusions Using an assistant port does not improve the success or complications of RALP, while the cosmetic outcomes are inferior to three-port RALP in children. We suggest avoiding the use of assistant port during RALP in children.
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00383-022-05158-3
dc.identifier.endpage1334
dc.identifier.issn0179-0358
dc.identifier.issn1437-9813
dc.identifier.issue9
dc.identifier.pmid35849174
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85134549255
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage1327
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-022-05158-3
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11480/16363
dc.identifier.volume38
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000826794600001
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSpringer
dc.relation.ispartofPediatric Surgery International
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_20241106
dc.subjectUreteropelvic junction obstruction
dc.subjectPyeloplasty
dc.subjectRobotic pyeloplasty
dc.subjectPediatric urology
dc.titleAssistant port is unnecessary for robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: a comparative cohort study
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu