<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xml:lang="ru"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">urmj</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="ru">Уральский медицинский журнал</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>Ural Medical Journal</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2949-4389</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Ural State Medical University</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.25694/URMJ.2018.09.17</article-id><article-id custom-type="elpub" pub-id-type="custom">urmj-287</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>МОЧЕКАМЕННАЯ БОЛЕЗНЬ</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Микролапароскопическая пластика гидронефроза. опыт 120 операций</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>Microlaparoscopic pyeloplasty. 120 cases experience</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Серегин</surname><given-names>А. А.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Seregin</surname><given-names>A. A.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email xlink:type="simple">sasha.seregin@gmail.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Панкратьев</surname><given-names>Ю. Л.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Pankratyev</surname><given-names>Y. L.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email xlink:type="simple">noemail@neicon.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-2"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Симанков</surname><given-names>И. В.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Simankov</surname><given-names>I. V.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email xlink:type="simple">noemail@neicon.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-2"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Серегин</surname><given-names>А. В.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Seregin</surname><given-names>A. V.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email xlink:type="simple">noemail@neicon.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff xml:lang="ru" id="aff-1"><institution>ГБОУ ДПО РМАНПО; ГКБ. им. С.П. Боткина</institution><country>Russian Federation</country></aff><aff xml:lang="ru" id="aff-2"><institution>ГБОУ ДПО РМАНПО</institution><country>Russian Federation</country></aff><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2018</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>14</day><month>04</month><year>2021</year></pub-date><volume>0</volume><issue>9</issue><fpage>38</fpage><lpage>42</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright &amp;#x00A9; Серегин А.А., Панкратьев Ю.Л., Симанков И.В., Серегин А.В., 2021</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2021</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Серегин А.А., Панкратьев Ю.Л., Симанков И.В., Серегин А.В.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Seregin A.A., Pankratyev Y.L., Simankov I.V., Seregin A.V.</copyright-holder><license xml:lang="ru" license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.</license-p></license><license xml:lang="en" license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://www.umjusmu.ru/jour/article/view/287">https://www.umjusmu.ru/jour/article/view/287</self-uri><abstract><p>Введение: Лапароскопическая пиелопластика является золотым стандартом лечения гидронефроза. Улучшение микролапароскопического инструментария позволило его применить для сложной диссекции и реконструкции, которые требуются в ходе лапароскопической пиелопластики. Целью работы являлась оценка функциональных результатов микролапароскопии в сравнении со стандартной лапароскопией при пластике гидронефроза у взрослых. Методы: Нами были проанализированы результаты хирургического лечения 120 пациентов, которым была проведена микролапароскопическая пиелопластика (МЛП) с 2010 по 2017 гг. и 101 больного, которым выполнена операция пиелопластики по стандартной лапароскопической методике (СЛП). Применялась методика гибридной микролапароскопии с использованием одного 5мм троакара для HD-лапароскопа, устанавливаемого скрыто в пупочном разрезе и 2,5 или 3 мм рабочих инструментов, в сравнении со стандартной лапароскопией. Во всех случаях выполнена операция Hynes-Anderson c антеградной установкой стента. результаты: все варианты лапароскопической пиелопластики обеспечили хорошие послеоперационные результаты: 100% - МЛП и 98% - СЛП (оценивался как исчезновение болевого симптома и/или улучшение при дНСГ). Не наблюдалось статистически значимых различий в уровне интраоперационных и послеоперационных осложнений, времени операции, нахождения дренажа, уретрального катетера, мочеточникового стента и пребывания в стационаре. Через 3-4 месяца места разрезов были практически невидимы в области пупка, а места от 3мм троакаров напоминали маленькие родинки, в то время как места от разрезов после СЛП были более заметны. Выводы: в нашем исследовании микролапароскопия продемонстрировала одинаковый функциональный результат и безопасность выполнения в сравнении со стандартной при пластике гидронефроза у взрослых. МЛП с HD-видєниєм позволяет использовать при анастомозе тонкие нити № 5-0, что обеспечивает большую прецизионность выполнения операции, что, с учетом лучшего косметического результата, достигаемого при минилапароскопии, сделало эту методику стандартной при пиелопластике в нашей клинике.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="en"><p>The aim of the study was to evaluate functional results of microlaparoscopy compared with standard laparoscopy in pyeloplasty in adults. Patients and methods. The study included 120 patients who underwent microlaparoscopic pyeloplasty (MLP) - and 101 standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty (SLP). MLP was performed with two or three 2.5-3 mm trocars (Storz) and one 5 mm trocar for the Hd-laparoscope installed through the navel. In all cases Hynes- Anderson procedure was performed with antegrade insertion of stent. Two continuous 5-0 biosyn sutures were used for anastomosis. Stent was removed after 6 weeks and evaluation of renal function was performed in 3-6 months. Results. All options of laparoscopic pyeloplasty provide good postoperative results: 100% - MLP and 98% - SLP (defined as absense of pain and/or T1/2 improvement). There was no conversion. There were no statistically significant differences in complications, duration of hospital stay. After 3-4 months postoperative scars were almost invisible in the navel, and the sites from 3 mm trocars were like little moles, at the same time SLP postoperative scars were more noticeable. Conclusion. In our study MLP showed the same functional outcome and safety in comparison with the SLP. MLP with Hd-vision allows the use of thin filaments № 5-0 for anastomosis to provide greater operative precision that made it a standard method of pyeloplasty in our clinic with regard to a better cosmetic result achieved.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>гидронефроз</kwd><kwd>пиелопластика</kwd><kwd>лапароскопия</kwd><kwd>микролапароскопия</kwd><kwd>минилапароскопия</kwd><kwd>минимальноинвазивная хирургия</kwd><kwd>hydronephrosis</kwd><kwd>UPJO</kwd><kwd>pyeloplasty</kwd><kwd>minimally invasive surgery</kwd><kwd>laparoscopy</kwd><kwd>microlaparoscopy</kwd><kwd>minilaparoscopy</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="cit1"><label>1</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dis- membered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993;150:1795-1799. doi: 8230507</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dis- membered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993;150:1795-1799. doi: 8230507</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit2"><label>2</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Desai MM, Berger AK, Brandina R, Aron M, Irwin BH, Canes D, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: initial hundred patients. Urology 2009;74:805-812. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.0444</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Desai MM, Berger AK, Brandina R, Aron M, Irwin BH, Canes D, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: initial hundred patients. Urology 2009;74:805-812. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.0444</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit3"><label>3</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Hanske J., Sanchez A., Schmid M., et al. Comparison of 30-day perioperative outcomes in adults undergoing open versus minimally invasive pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: analysis of 593 patients in a prospective national database. World Journal of Urology. 2015;33(12):2107-2113.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Hanske J., Sanchez A., Schmid M., et al. Comparison of 30-day perioperative outcomes in adults undergoing open versus minimally invasive pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: analysis of 593 patients in a prospective national database. World Journal of Urology. 2015;33(12):2107-2113.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit4"><label>4</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Boylu U., Basatac C., Turan T., Onol F. F., Gumus E. Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive and open pyeloplasty. Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques. 2012;22(10):968-971.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Boylu U., Basatac C., Turan T., Onol F. F., Gumus E. Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive and open pyeloplasty. Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques. 2012;22(10):968-971.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit5"><label>5</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Baçataç C., Boylu U., ÖnolF. F., GümüçE. Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Turk Uroloji Dergisi. 2014;40(1):24-30.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Baçataç C., Boylu U., ÖnolF. F., GümüçE. Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Turk Uroloji Dergisi. 2014;40(1):24-30.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit6"><label>6</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Porpiglia F, Autorino R, Cicione A, et al. Contemporary urologic minilaparoscopy: indications, techniques, and surgical outcomes in a multi-institutional European cohort. J Endourol 2014;28:951-7.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Porpiglia F, Autorino R, Cicione A, et al. Contemporary urologic minilaparoscopy: indications, techniques, and surgical outcomes in a multi-institutional European cohort. J Endourol 2014;28:951-7.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit7"><label>7</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Fiori C, Morra I, Bertolo R, Mele F, Chiarissi ML, Porpiglia F. Standard vs mini-laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Perioperative outcomes and cosmetic results. BJU Int 2013;111:E121-6.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Fiori C, Morra I, Bertolo R, Mele F, Chiarissi ML, Porpiglia F. Standard vs mini-laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Perioperative outcomes and cosmetic results. BJU Int 2013;111:E121-6.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit8"><label>8</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Pini G, Goezen AS, Schulze M, Hruza M, Klein J, Rassweiler JJ. Small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique (SMART) pyeloplasty in adult patients: comparison of cosmetic and postoperative pain outcomes in a matched-pair analysis with standard retroperitoneoscopy: preliminary report. World J Urol 2011; [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-011-0740-x</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Pini G, Goezen AS, Schulze M, Hruza M, Klein J, Rassweiler JJ. Small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique (SMART) pyeloplasty in adult patients: comparison of cosmetic and postoperative pain outcomes in a matched-pair analysis with standard retroperitoneoscopy: preliminary report. World J Urol 2011; [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-011-0740-x</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit9"><label>9</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Pini G, Goezen AS, Schulze M, Hruza M, Klein J, Rassweiler JJ. Small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique (SMART) pyeloplasty in adult patients: Comparison of cosmetic and postoperative pain outcomes in a matched- pair analysis with standard retroperitoneoscopy: Preliminary report. World J Urol 2012;30: 605-11.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Pini G, Goezen AS, Schulze M, Hruza M, Klein J, Rassweiler JJ. Small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique (SMART) pyeloplasty in adult patients: Comparison of cosmetic and postoperative pain outcomes in a matched- pair analysis with standard retroperitoneoscopy: Preliminary report. World J Urol 2012;30: 605-11.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref></ref-list><fn-group><fn fn-type="conflict"><p>The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.</p></fn></fn-group></back></article>
