Day‐case catheterless and drainless minimal‐access pyeloplasty in adults: A single‐center experience of 13 years
Rattachement africain : gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVES: To analyze our practice of drainless and catheterless day-case minimal-access pyeloplasty with regard to feasibility, safety and long-term outcomes. METHODS: Patients undergoing minimal-access pyeloplasty (laparoscopic, with or without robotic assistance) in a single center between 2007 and 2020 were included in this retrospective observational study. Patient demographics and the success rate of day-case discharge along with postoperative outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients underwent minimal-access pyeloplasty in this time period, of whom 116 met the inclusion criteria. The mean patient age was 48 years. A total of 65% of the patients (n = 75) were discharged on the same day and 88% (n = 101) were discharged within 23 h of surgery. Of the 14 patients with a hospital stay of >24 h, pain was the most common reason (60%) for delayed discharge. The overall subjective (pain-free status) and objective (unobstructed drainage) success rates were 91% and 86%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that routine drains or urethral catheters are not necessary in minimal-access pyeloplasty, and their omission could facilitate early recovery and day-case discharge without compromising long-term surgical outcomes. Large randomized controlled studies are required to prospectively evaluate outcomes.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Day‐case catheterless and drainless minimal‐access pyeloplasty in adults: A single‐center experience of 13 years
- Date Crossref
- 22/02/2021
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.