Will three-dimensional models change the way nephrometric scoring is carried out?Lorenz Berger and Faiz Mumtaz 899 Threading the cost-outcome needle after radical cystectomy David F. Friedlander 900 Translating cost-utility modelling into the real world -the case of focal high-intensity focussed ultrasound and active surveillance Mark Emberton 901 A better way to predict lymph node involvement using machine-learning?
To compare the surgical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive pyeloplasty versus open pyeloplasty.Between 2008 and 2010, 20 patients underwent transperitoneal minimally invasive (13 robot-assisted and 7 laparoscopic) pyeloplasty, and 22 patients underwent conventional open pyeloplasty. Operative and functional outcomes were compared between the minimally invasive and open pyeloplasty groups. The statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test, unpaired t test, and Mann-Whitney U test.The mean age was 31 years in the minimally invasive group and 27 years in the open group. The mean operative time was 131 minutes in the minimally invasive group and 128 minutes in the open group (P=.71). The estimated blood loss was 30 mL in the minimally invasive group and 108 mL in the open group (P=.001). The drain was removed after 1.75 days and 4.48 days in the minimally invasive and open groups, respectively (P=.001). The mean hospital stay was 1.94 days and 4.19 days in the minimally invasive and open groups, respectively (P=.001). Crossing vessels were observed in 21% of all patients, and the transposition of the ureter was performed in all patients with an anterior crossing vessel. One patient in each group had symptomatic and radiographic recurrence and persistently obstructed drainage pattern on diuretic renography. The radiographic and symptomatic success rate was 95% in the minimally invasive group and 95.5% in the open group.Minimally invasive pyeloplasty has low morbidity, short length of stay, and less blood loss compared with open surgical repair. It is an effective and feasible minimally invasive treatment modality for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)