A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation for lower ureter pathology: Single-institutional comparative study. | LitMetric

Objective: To compare and analyze the results of laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation and robotic-assisted ureteric reimplantation at our tertiary institute.

Materials And Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data of adult patients who underwent laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation and robotic-assisted ureteric reimplantation between January 2000 and December 2020. Data were analyzed for 19 patients in the laparoscopic group and 47 patients in the robotic group. The data were compared in both the groups.

Results: The most common presentation was flank pain (67.89%) followed by recurrent UTI (21.05%) in both the groups. The baseline characteristics and demographic data including age, gender, laterality, Charlson comorbidity index, and BMI were comparable in both the groups. The time range from previous surgeries to presentation varied from 7 days to 5 years. There is statistically significant difference between the operative time in the laparoscopic (224.23 ± 76.61 min) and robotic groups (187.06 ± 52.81 min) (p = 0.027). There is statistically significant difference between the hospital stay also between the two groups (9.07 ± 2.75 vs. 6 ± 1.65 days p-0.001). There were no differences in the complication rate and postoperative outcomes in both the groups. Mean length of follow-up was 28 ± 25.5 (2-108) months and 20.57 ± 19.91 (2-96) months in both the groups, respectively. The success rates in terms of symptomatic improvement, decrease in hydronephrosis, and improved drainage in the laparoscopic and robotic groups were 94.73% and 95.45%, respectively, which were statistically not significant.

Conclusions: Robotic ureteric reimplantation and laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation are comparable in clinical outcomes. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation is feasible, safe, and faster with excellent outcomes, decreased hospital stay, and minimal complications.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/iju.14998DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ureteric reimplantation
36
laparoscopic ureteric
24
laparoscopic
9
reimplantation
9
robotic-assisted laparoscopic
8
ureteric
8
reimplantation robotic-assisted
8
robotic-assisted ureteric
8
statistically difference
8
robotic groups
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!