A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study

Abstract Literature data comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic approaches are still lacking, probably due to difficulties with the retroperitoneoscopic approach. The objective is to compare the results of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty using transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in a prospective randomised single surgeon study. 80 consecutive patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were prospectively randomised between transperitoneal (40 patients, group 1) and retroperitoneal (40 patients, group 2) robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. All patients underwent preoperative clinical evaluation, retrograde urography, and diuretic isotope renography. All operations were performed by a single-experienced surgeon. Patients were followed up by postoperative clinical examination, sonography, and diuretic renography at 3–6 months. Both approaches were compared with regard to patients’ demographic data, radiological and operative findings, and functional outcomes, and correlations were statistically evaluated. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and renal scintigraphy data were comparable for both groups. No open/laparoscopic conversions were necessary. Mean operative times (skin to skin) were 125 (70–305) and 118 (60–345) min for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.726). Only minor complications were found in three and four patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pyeloplasty technique included a renal pelvis flap in three patients from either group,; otherwise, the Anderson–Hynes technique was employed. None of perioperative patient and operative parameters, including approach, had a significant impact on operative time or functional outcomes. Median follow-up was 3 months for both groups. Success was recorded in 39 and 38 patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively, while equivocal results were obtained in 3 cases. Postoperative 3 month renal scintigraphy showed no significant GFR or split renal function differences between the groups. There was no detectable postoperative deterioration in ipsilateral split renal function or hydronephrosis grade. Robotic-assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty exhibits low morbidity and satisfactory operative and functional outcomes comparable to the usually preferred laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has high success rates regardless of the used approach. Accordingly, every surgeon should use the approach which he/she feels most comfortable with. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Khoder, Wael Y. [verfasserIn] Waidelich, Raphaela [verfasserIn] Ghamdi, Abdel Majeed Al [verfasserIn] Schulz, Therese [verfasserIn] Becker, Armin [verfasserIn] Stief, Christian G. [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2017

Schlagwörter:	Pyeloplasty Ureteropelvic junction obstruction Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty Laparoscopy

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Journal of robotic surgery - London : Springer, 2007, 12(2017), 1 vom: 22. Mai, Seite 131-137
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:12 ; year:2017 ; number:1 ; day:22 ; month:05 ; pages:131-137

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z

Katalog-ID:	SPR021925542

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR021925542
003	DE-627
005	20230519134007.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201006s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR021925542
035			\|a (SPR)s11701-017-0707-z-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 610 \|q ASE
084			\|a 44.65 \|2 bkl
100	1		\|a Khoder, Wael Y. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	2	\|a A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study
264		1	\|c 2017
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Abstract Literature data comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic approaches are still lacking, probably due to difficulties with the retroperitoneoscopic approach. The objective is to compare the results of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty using transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in a prospective randomised single surgeon study. 80 consecutive patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were prospectively randomised between transperitoneal (40 patients, group 1) and retroperitoneal (40 patients, group 2) robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. All patients underwent preoperative clinical evaluation, retrograde urography, and diuretic isotope renography. All operations were performed by a single-experienced surgeon. Patients were followed up by postoperative clinical examination, sonography, and diuretic renography at 3–6 months. Both approaches were compared with regard to patients’ demographic data, radiological and operative findings, and functional outcomes, and correlations were statistically evaluated. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and renal scintigraphy data were comparable for both groups. No open/laparoscopic conversions were necessary. Mean operative times (skin to skin) were 125 (70–305) and 118 (60–345) min for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.726). Only minor complications were found in three and four patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pyeloplasty technique included a renal pelvis flap in three patients from either group,; otherwise, the Anderson–Hynes technique was employed. None of perioperative patient and operative parameters, including approach, had a significant impact on operative time or functional outcomes. Median follow-up was 3 months for both groups. Success was recorded in 39 and 38 patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively, while equivocal results were obtained in 3 cases. Postoperative 3 month renal scintigraphy showed no significant GFR or split renal function differences between the groups. There was no detectable postoperative deterioration in ipsilateral split renal function or hydronephrosis grade. Robotic-assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty exhibits low morbidity and satisfactory operative and functional outcomes comparable to the usually preferred laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has high success rates regardless of the used approach. Accordingly, every surgeon should use the approach which he/she feels most comfortable with.
650		4	\|a Pyeloplasty \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Ureteropelvic junction obstruction \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Laparoscopy \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Waidelich, Raphaela \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Ghamdi, Abdel Majeed Al \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Schulz, Therese \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Becker, Armin \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Stief, Christian G. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Journal of robotic surgery \|d London : Springer, 2007 \|g 12(2017), 1 vom: 22. Mai, Seite 131-137 \|w (DE-627)523858361 \|w (DE-600)2268283-1 \|x 1863-2491 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:12 \|g year:2017 \|g number:1 \|g day:22 \|g month:05 \|g pages:131-137
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z \|z lizenzpflichtig \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_32
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_90
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_100
912			\|a GBV_ILN_101
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_120
912			\|a GBV_ILN_138
912			\|a GBV_ILN_150
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_171
912			\|a GBV_ILN_187
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_224
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_250
912			\|a GBV_ILN_281
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_636
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2001
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2004
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2007
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2008
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2010
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2015
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2020
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2021
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2026
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2027
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2031
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2034
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2038
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2039
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2044
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2048
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2049
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2050
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2057
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2059
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2061
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2064
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2065
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2068
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2070
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2086
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2088
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2093
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2106
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2107
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2108
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2113
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2116
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2118
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2119
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2122
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2129
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2143
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2144
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2147
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2148
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2152
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2153
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2188
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2232
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2336
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2446
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2470
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2472
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2507
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2522
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2548
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4035
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4046
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4242
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4246
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4251
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4326
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4333
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4334
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4335
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4336
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4393
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
936	b	k	\|a 44.65 \|q ASE
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 12 \|j 2017 \|e 1 \|b 22 \|c 05 \|h 131-137

Indexfelder

author_variant	w y k wy wyk r w rw a m a g ama amag t s ts a b ab c g s cg cgs
matchkey_str	article:18632491:2017----::popcieadmsdoprsneweternprtnaaderprtnocpcprahsorbtcsitdylp
hierarchy_sort_str	2017
bklnumber	44.65
publishDate	2017
allfields	10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z doi (DE-627)SPR021925542 (SPR)s11701-017-0707-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.65 bkl Khoder, Wael Y. verfasserin aut A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Literature data comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic approaches are still lacking, probably due to difficulties with the retroperitoneoscopic approach. The objective is to compare the results of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty using transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in a prospective randomised single surgeon study. 80 consecutive patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were prospectively randomised between transperitoneal (40 patients, group 1) and retroperitoneal (40 patients, group 2) robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. All patients underwent preoperative clinical evaluation, retrograde urography, and diuretic isotope renography. All operations were performed by a single-experienced surgeon. Patients were followed up by postoperative clinical examination, sonography, and diuretic renography at 3–6 months. Both approaches were compared with regard to patients’ demographic data, radiological and operative findings, and functional outcomes, and correlations were statistically evaluated. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and renal scintigraphy data were comparable for both groups. No open/laparoscopic conversions were necessary. Mean operative times (skin to skin) were 125 (70–305) and 118 (60–345) min for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.726). Only minor complications were found in three and four patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pyeloplasty technique included a renal pelvis flap in three patients from either group,; otherwise, the Anderson–Hynes technique was employed. None of perioperative patient and operative parameters, including approach, had a significant impact on operative time or functional outcomes. Median follow-up was 3 months for both groups. Success was recorded in 39 and 38 patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively, while equivocal results were obtained in 3 cases. Postoperative 3 month renal scintigraphy showed no significant GFR or split renal function differences between the groups. There was no detectable postoperative deterioration in ipsilateral split renal function or hydronephrosis grade. Robotic-assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty exhibits low morbidity and satisfactory operative and functional outcomes comparable to the usually preferred laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has high success rates regardless of the used approach. Accordingly, every surgeon should use the approach which he/she feels most comfortable with. Pyeloplasty (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty (dpeaa)DE-He213 Laparoscopy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Waidelich, Raphaela verfasserin aut Ghamdi, Abdel Majeed Al verfasserin aut Schulz, Therese verfasserin aut Becker, Armin verfasserin aut Stief, Christian G. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Journal of robotic surgery London : Springer, 2007 12(2017), 1 vom: 22. Mai, Seite 131-137 (DE-627)523858361 (DE-600)2268283-1 1863-2491 nnns volume:12 year:2017 number:1 day:22 month:05 pages:131-137 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 44.65 ASE AR 12 2017 1 22 05 131-137
spelling	10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z doi (DE-627)SPR021925542 (SPR)s11701-017-0707-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.65 bkl Khoder, Wael Y. verfasserin aut A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Literature data comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic approaches are still lacking, probably due to difficulties with the retroperitoneoscopic approach. The objective is to compare the results of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty using transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in a prospective randomised single surgeon study. 80 consecutive patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were prospectively randomised between transperitoneal (40 patients, group 1) and retroperitoneal (40 patients, group 2) robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. All patients underwent preoperative clinical evaluation, retrograde urography, and diuretic isotope renography. All operations were performed by a single-experienced surgeon. Patients were followed up by postoperative clinical examination, sonography, and diuretic renography at 3–6 months. Both approaches were compared with regard to patients’ demographic data, radiological and operative findings, and functional outcomes, and correlations were statistically evaluated. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and renal scintigraphy data were comparable for both groups. No open/laparoscopic conversions were necessary. Mean operative times (skin to skin) were 125 (70–305) and 118 (60–345) min for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.726). Only minor complications were found in three and four patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pyeloplasty technique included a renal pelvis flap in three patients from either group,; otherwise, the Anderson–Hynes technique was employed. None of perioperative patient and operative parameters, including approach, had a significant impact on operative time or functional outcomes. Median follow-up was 3 months for both groups. Success was recorded in 39 and 38 patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively, while equivocal results were obtained in 3 cases. Postoperative 3 month renal scintigraphy showed no significant GFR or split renal function differences between the groups. There was no detectable postoperative deterioration in ipsilateral split renal function or hydronephrosis grade. Robotic-assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty exhibits low morbidity and satisfactory operative and functional outcomes comparable to the usually preferred laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has high success rates regardless of the used approach. Accordingly, every surgeon should use the approach which he/she feels most comfortable with. Pyeloplasty (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty (dpeaa)DE-He213 Laparoscopy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Waidelich, Raphaela verfasserin aut Ghamdi, Abdel Majeed Al verfasserin aut Schulz, Therese verfasserin aut Becker, Armin verfasserin aut Stief, Christian G. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Journal of robotic surgery London : Springer, 2007 12(2017), 1 vom: 22. Mai, Seite 131-137 (DE-627)523858361 (DE-600)2268283-1 1863-2491 nnns volume:12 year:2017 number:1 day:22 month:05 pages:131-137 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 44.65 ASE AR 12 2017 1 22 05 131-137
allfields_unstemmed	10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z doi (DE-627)SPR021925542 (SPR)s11701-017-0707-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.65 bkl Khoder, Wael Y. verfasserin aut A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Literature data comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic approaches are still lacking, probably due to difficulties with the retroperitoneoscopic approach. The objective is to compare the results of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty using transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in a prospective randomised single surgeon study. 80 consecutive patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were prospectively randomised between transperitoneal (40 patients, group 1) and retroperitoneal (40 patients, group 2) robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. All patients underwent preoperative clinical evaluation, retrograde urography, and diuretic isotope renography. All operations were performed by a single-experienced surgeon. Patients were followed up by postoperative clinical examination, sonography, and diuretic renography at 3–6 months. Both approaches were compared with regard to patients’ demographic data, radiological and operative findings, and functional outcomes, and correlations were statistically evaluated. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and renal scintigraphy data were comparable for both groups. No open/laparoscopic conversions were necessary. Mean operative times (skin to skin) were 125 (70–305) and 118 (60–345) min for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.726). Only minor complications were found in three and four patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pyeloplasty technique included a renal pelvis flap in three patients from either group,; otherwise, the Anderson–Hynes technique was employed. None of perioperative patient and operative parameters, including approach, had a significant impact on operative time or functional outcomes. Median follow-up was 3 months for both groups. Success was recorded in 39 and 38 patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively, while equivocal results were obtained in 3 cases. Postoperative 3 month renal scintigraphy showed no significant GFR or split renal function differences between the groups. There was no detectable postoperative deterioration in ipsilateral split renal function or hydronephrosis grade. Robotic-assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty exhibits low morbidity and satisfactory operative and functional outcomes comparable to the usually preferred laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has high success rates regardless of the used approach. Accordingly, every surgeon should use the approach which he/she feels most comfortable with. Pyeloplasty (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty (dpeaa)DE-He213 Laparoscopy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Waidelich, Raphaela verfasserin aut Ghamdi, Abdel Majeed Al verfasserin aut Schulz, Therese verfasserin aut Becker, Armin verfasserin aut Stief, Christian G. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Journal of robotic surgery London : Springer, 2007 12(2017), 1 vom: 22. Mai, Seite 131-137 (DE-627)523858361 (DE-600)2268283-1 1863-2491 nnns volume:12 year:2017 number:1 day:22 month:05 pages:131-137 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 44.65 ASE AR 12 2017 1 22 05 131-137
allfieldsGer	10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z doi (DE-627)SPR021925542 (SPR)s11701-017-0707-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.65 bkl Khoder, Wael Y. verfasserin aut A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Literature data comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic approaches are still lacking, probably due to difficulties with the retroperitoneoscopic approach. The objective is to compare the results of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty using transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in a prospective randomised single surgeon study. 80 consecutive patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were prospectively randomised between transperitoneal (40 patients, group 1) and retroperitoneal (40 patients, group 2) robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. All patients underwent preoperative clinical evaluation, retrograde urography, and diuretic isotope renography. All operations were performed by a single-experienced surgeon. Patients were followed up by postoperative clinical examination, sonography, and diuretic renography at 3–6 months. Both approaches were compared with regard to patients’ demographic data, radiological and operative findings, and functional outcomes, and correlations were statistically evaluated. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and renal scintigraphy data were comparable for both groups. No open/laparoscopic conversions were necessary. Mean operative times (skin to skin) were 125 (70–305) and 118 (60–345) min for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.726). Only minor complications were found in three and four patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pyeloplasty technique included a renal pelvis flap in three patients from either group,; otherwise, the Anderson–Hynes technique was employed. None of perioperative patient and operative parameters, including approach, had a significant impact on operative time or functional outcomes. Median follow-up was 3 months for both groups. Success was recorded in 39 and 38 patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively, while equivocal results were obtained in 3 cases. Postoperative 3 month renal scintigraphy showed no significant GFR or split renal function differences between the groups. There was no detectable postoperative deterioration in ipsilateral split renal function or hydronephrosis grade. Robotic-assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty exhibits low morbidity and satisfactory operative and functional outcomes comparable to the usually preferred laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has high success rates regardless of the used approach. Accordingly, every surgeon should use the approach which he/she feels most comfortable with. Pyeloplasty (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty (dpeaa)DE-He213 Laparoscopy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Waidelich, Raphaela verfasserin aut Ghamdi, Abdel Majeed Al verfasserin aut Schulz, Therese verfasserin aut Becker, Armin verfasserin aut Stief, Christian G. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Journal of robotic surgery London : Springer, 2007 12(2017), 1 vom: 22. Mai, Seite 131-137 (DE-627)523858361 (DE-600)2268283-1 1863-2491 nnns volume:12 year:2017 number:1 day:22 month:05 pages:131-137 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 44.65 ASE AR 12 2017 1 22 05 131-137
allfieldsSound	10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z doi (DE-627)SPR021925542 (SPR)s11701-017-0707-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.65 bkl Khoder, Wael Y. verfasserin aut A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Literature data comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic approaches are still lacking, probably due to difficulties with the retroperitoneoscopic approach. The objective is to compare the results of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty using transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in a prospective randomised single surgeon study. 80 consecutive patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were prospectively randomised between transperitoneal (40 patients, group 1) and retroperitoneal (40 patients, group 2) robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. All patients underwent preoperative clinical evaluation, retrograde urography, and diuretic isotope renography. All operations were performed by a single-experienced surgeon. Patients were followed up by postoperative clinical examination, sonography, and diuretic renography at 3–6 months. Both approaches were compared with regard to patients’ demographic data, radiological and operative findings, and functional outcomes, and correlations were statistically evaluated. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and renal scintigraphy data were comparable for both groups. No open/laparoscopic conversions were necessary. Mean operative times (skin to skin) were 125 (70–305) and 118 (60–345) min for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.726). Only minor complications were found in three and four patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pyeloplasty technique included a renal pelvis flap in three patients from either group,; otherwise, the Anderson–Hynes technique was employed. None of perioperative patient and operative parameters, including approach, had a significant impact on operative time or functional outcomes. Median follow-up was 3 months for both groups. Success was recorded in 39 and 38 patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively, while equivocal results were obtained in 3 cases. Postoperative 3 month renal scintigraphy showed no significant GFR or split renal function differences between the groups. There was no detectable postoperative deterioration in ipsilateral split renal function or hydronephrosis grade. Robotic-assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty exhibits low morbidity and satisfactory operative and functional outcomes comparable to the usually preferred laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has high success rates regardless of the used approach. Accordingly, every surgeon should use the approach which he/she feels most comfortable with. Pyeloplasty (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty (dpeaa)DE-He213 Laparoscopy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Waidelich, Raphaela verfasserin aut Ghamdi, Abdel Majeed Al verfasserin aut Schulz, Therese verfasserin aut Becker, Armin verfasserin aut Stief, Christian G. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Journal of robotic surgery London : Springer, 2007 12(2017), 1 vom: 22. Mai, Seite 131-137 (DE-627)523858361 (DE-600)2268283-1 1863-2491 nnns volume:12 year:2017 number:1 day:22 month:05 pages:131-137 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 44.65 ASE AR 12 2017 1 22 05 131-137
language	English
source	Enthalten in Journal of robotic surgery 12(2017), 1 vom: 22. Mai, Seite 131-137 volume:12 year:2017 number:1 day:22 month:05 pages:131-137
sourceStr	Enthalten in Journal of robotic surgery 12(2017), 1 vom: 22. Mai, Seite 131-137 volume:12 year:2017 number:1 day:22 month:05 pages:131-137
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Pyeloplasty Ureteropelvic junction obstruction Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty Laparoscopy
dewey-raw	610
isfreeaccess_bool	false
container_title	Journal of robotic surgery
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Khoder, Wael Y. @@aut@@ Waidelich, Raphaela @@aut@@ Ghamdi, Abdel Majeed Al @@aut@@ Schulz, Therese @@aut@@ Becker, Armin @@aut@@ Stief, Christian G. @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2017-05-22T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	523858361
dewey-sort	3610
id	SPR021925542
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR021925542</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519134007.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201006s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR021925542</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s11701-017-0707-z-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Khoder, Wael Y.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Literature data comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic approaches are still lacking, probably due to difficulties with the retroperitoneoscopic approach. The objective is to compare the results of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty using transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in a prospective randomised single surgeon study. 80 consecutive patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were prospectively randomised between transperitoneal (40 patients, group 1) and retroperitoneal (40 patients, group 2) robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. All patients underwent preoperative clinical evaluation, retrograde urography, and diuretic isotope renography. All operations were performed by a single-experienced surgeon. Patients were followed up by postoperative clinical examination, sonography, and diuretic renography at 3–6 months. Both approaches were compared with regard to patients’ demographic data, radiological and operative findings, and functional outcomes, and correlations were statistically evaluated. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and renal scintigraphy data were comparable for both groups. No open/laparoscopic conversions were necessary. Mean operative times (skin to skin) were 125 (70–305) and 118 (60–345) min for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.726). Only minor complications were found in three and four patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pyeloplasty technique included a renal pelvis flap in three patients from either group,; otherwise, the Anderson–Hynes technique was employed. None of perioperative patient and operative parameters, including approach, had a significant impact on operative time or functional outcomes. Median follow-up was 3 months for both groups. Success was recorded in 39 and 38 patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively, while equivocal results were obtained in 3 cases. Postoperative 3 month renal scintigraphy showed no significant GFR or split renal function differences between the groups. There was no detectable postoperative deterioration in ipsilateral split renal function or hydronephrosis grade. Robotic-assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty exhibits low morbidity and satisfactory operative and functional outcomes comparable to the usually preferred laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has high success rates regardless of the used approach. Accordingly, every surgeon should use the approach which he/she feels most comfortable with.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pyeloplasty</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ureteropelvic junction obstruction</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Laparoscopy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Waidelich, Raphaela</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ghamdi, Abdel Majeed Al</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schulz, Therese</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Becker, Armin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stief, Christian G.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of robotic surgery</subfield><subfield code="d">London : Springer, 2007</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2017), 1 vom: 22. Mai, Seite 131-137</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)523858361</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2268283-1</subfield><subfield code="x">1863-2491</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:22</subfield><subfield code="g">month:05</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:131-137</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_636</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2039</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2070</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2086</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2093</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2107</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2116</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2144</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2188</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2446</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2472</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2548</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4246</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">22</subfield><subfield code="c">05</subfield><subfield code="h">131-137</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Khoder, Wael Y.
spellingShingle	Khoder, Wael Y. ddc 610 bkl 44.65 misc Pyeloplasty misc Ureteropelvic junction obstruction misc Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty misc Laparoscopy A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study
authorStr	Khoder, Wael Y.
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)523858361
format	electronic Article
dewey-ones	610 - Medicine & health
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1863-2491
topic_title	610 ASE 44.65 bkl A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study Pyeloplasty (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (dpeaa)DE-He213 Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty (dpeaa)DE-He213 Laparoscopy (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	ddc 610 bkl 44.65 misc Pyeloplasty misc Ureteropelvic junction obstruction misc Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty misc Laparoscopy
topic_unstemmed	ddc 610 bkl 44.65 misc Pyeloplasty misc Ureteropelvic junction obstruction misc Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty misc Laparoscopy
topic_browse	ddc 610 bkl 44.65 misc Pyeloplasty misc Ureteropelvic junction obstruction misc Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty misc Laparoscopy
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Journal of robotic surgery
hierarchy_parent_id	523858361
dewey-tens	610 - Medicine & health
hierarchy_top_title	Journal of robotic surgery
isfreeaccess_txt	false
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)523858361 (DE-600)2268283-1
title	A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR021925542 (SPR)s11701-017-0707-z-e
title_full	A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study
author_sort	Khoder, Wael Y.
journal	Journal of robotic surgery
journalStr	Journal of robotic surgery
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	false
dewey-hundreds	600 - Technology
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2017
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	131
author_browse	Khoder, Wael Y. Waidelich, Raphaela Ghamdi, Abdel Majeed Al Schulz, Therese Becker, Armin Stief, Christian G.
container_volume	12
class	610 ASE 44.65 bkl
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Khoder, Wael Y.
doi_str_mv	10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z
dewey-full	610
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study
title_auth	A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study
abstract	Abstract Literature data comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic approaches are still lacking, probably due to difficulties with the retroperitoneoscopic approach. The objective is to compare the results of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty using transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in a prospective randomised single surgeon study. 80 consecutive patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were prospectively randomised between transperitoneal (40 patients, group 1) and retroperitoneal (40 patients, group 2) robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. All patients underwent preoperative clinical evaluation, retrograde urography, and diuretic isotope renography. All operations were performed by a single-experienced surgeon. Patients were followed up by postoperative clinical examination, sonography, and diuretic renography at 3–6 months. Both approaches were compared with regard to patients’ demographic data, radiological and operative findings, and functional outcomes, and correlations were statistically evaluated. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and renal scintigraphy data were comparable for both groups. No open/laparoscopic conversions were necessary. Mean operative times (skin to skin) were 125 (70–305) and 118 (60–345) min for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.726). Only minor complications were found in three and four patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pyeloplasty technique included a renal pelvis flap in three patients from either group,; otherwise, the Anderson–Hynes technique was employed. None of perioperative patient and operative parameters, including approach, had a significant impact on operative time or functional outcomes. Median follow-up was 3 months for both groups. Success was recorded in 39 and 38 patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively, while equivocal results were obtained in 3 cases. Postoperative 3 month renal scintigraphy showed no significant GFR or split renal function differences between the groups. There was no detectable postoperative deterioration in ipsilateral split renal function or hydronephrosis grade. Robotic-assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty exhibits low morbidity and satisfactory operative and functional outcomes comparable to the usually preferred laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has high success rates regardless of the used approach. Accordingly, every surgeon should use the approach which he/she feels most comfortable with.
abstractGer	Abstract Literature data comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic approaches are still lacking, probably due to difficulties with the retroperitoneoscopic approach. The objective is to compare the results of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty using transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in a prospective randomised single surgeon study. 80 consecutive patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were prospectively randomised between transperitoneal (40 patients, group 1) and retroperitoneal (40 patients, group 2) robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. All patients underwent preoperative clinical evaluation, retrograde urography, and diuretic isotope renography. All operations were performed by a single-experienced surgeon. Patients were followed up by postoperative clinical examination, sonography, and diuretic renography at 3–6 months. Both approaches were compared with regard to patients’ demographic data, radiological and operative findings, and functional outcomes, and correlations were statistically evaluated. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and renal scintigraphy data were comparable for both groups. No open/laparoscopic conversions were necessary. Mean operative times (skin to skin) were 125 (70–305) and 118 (60–345) min for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.726). Only minor complications were found in three and four patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pyeloplasty technique included a renal pelvis flap in three patients from either group,; otherwise, the Anderson–Hynes technique was employed. None of perioperative patient and operative parameters, including approach, had a significant impact on operative time or functional outcomes. Median follow-up was 3 months for both groups. Success was recorded in 39 and 38 patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively, while equivocal results were obtained in 3 cases. Postoperative 3 month renal scintigraphy showed no significant GFR or split renal function differences between the groups. There was no detectable postoperative deterioration in ipsilateral split renal function or hydronephrosis grade. Robotic-assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty exhibits low morbidity and satisfactory operative and functional outcomes comparable to the usually preferred laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has high success rates regardless of the used approach. Accordingly, every surgeon should use the approach which he/she feels most comfortable with.
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract Literature data comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic approaches are still lacking, probably due to difficulties with the retroperitoneoscopic approach. The objective is to compare the results of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty using transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in a prospective randomised single surgeon study. 80 consecutive patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were prospectively randomised between transperitoneal (40 patients, group 1) and retroperitoneal (40 patients, group 2) robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. All patients underwent preoperative clinical evaluation, retrograde urography, and diuretic isotope renography. All operations were performed by a single-experienced surgeon. Patients were followed up by postoperative clinical examination, sonography, and diuretic renography at 3–6 months. Both approaches were compared with regard to patients’ demographic data, radiological and operative findings, and functional outcomes, and correlations were statistically evaluated. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and renal scintigraphy data were comparable for both groups. No open/laparoscopic conversions were necessary. Mean operative times (skin to skin) were 125 (70–305) and 118 (60–345) min for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.726). Only minor complications were found in three and four patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pyeloplasty technique included a renal pelvis flap in three patients from either group,; otherwise, the Anderson–Hynes technique was employed. None of perioperative patient and operative parameters, including approach, had a significant impact on operative time or functional outcomes. Median follow-up was 3 months for both groups. Success was recorded in 39 and 38 patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively, while equivocal results were obtained in 3 cases. Postoperative 3 month renal scintigraphy showed no significant GFR or split renal function differences between the groups. There was no detectable postoperative deterioration in ipsilateral split renal function or hydronephrosis grade. Robotic-assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty exhibits low morbidity and satisfactory operative and functional outcomes comparable to the usually preferred laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has high success rates regardless of the used approach. Accordingly, every surgeon should use the approach which he/she feels most comfortable with.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z
remote_bool	true
author2	Waidelich, Raphaela Ghamdi, Abdel Majeed Al Schulz, Therese Becker, Armin Stief, Christian G.
author2Str	Waidelich, Raphaela Ghamdi, Abdel Majeed Al Schulz, Therese Becker, Armin Stief, Christian G.
ppnlink	523858361
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	false
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z
up_date	2024-07-04T01:03:15.697Z
_version_	1803608387171123200
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR021925542</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519134007.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201006s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR021925542</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s11701-017-0707-z-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Khoder, Wael Y.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Literature data comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic approaches are still lacking, probably due to difficulties with the retroperitoneoscopic approach. The objective is to compare the results of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty using transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in a prospective randomised single surgeon study. 80 consecutive patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were prospectively randomised between transperitoneal (40 patients, group 1) and retroperitoneal (40 patients, group 2) robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. All patients underwent preoperative clinical evaluation, retrograde urography, and diuretic isotope renography. All operations were performed by a single-experienced surgeon. Patients were followed up by postoperative clinical examination, sonography, and diuretic renography at 3–6 months. Both approaches were compared with regard to patients’ demographic data, radiological and operative findings, and functional outcomes, and correlations were statistically evaluated. Preoperative demographic, clinical, and renal scintigraphy data were comparable for both groups. No open/laparoscopic conversions were necessary. Mean operative times (skin to skin) were 125 (70–305) and 118 (60–345) min for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.726). Only minor complications were found in three and four patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pyeloplasty technique included a renal pelvis flap in three patients from either group,; otherwise, the Anderson–Hynes technique was employed. None of perioperative patient and operative parameters, including approach, had a significant impact on operative time or functional outcomes. Median follow-up was 3 months for both groups. Success was recorded in 39 and 38 patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively, while equivocal results were obtained in 3 cases. Postoperative 3 month renal scintigraphy showed no significant GFR or split renal function differences between the groups. There was no detectable postoperative deterioration in ipsilateral split renal function or hydronephrosis grade. Robotic-assisted retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty exhibits low morbidity and satisfactory operative and functional outcomes comparable to the usually preferred laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty has high success rates regardless of the used approach. Accordingly, every surgeon should use the approach which he/she feels most comfortable with.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pyeloplasty</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ureteropelvic junction obstruction</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Laparoscopy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Waidelich, Raphaela</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ghamdi, Abdel Majeed Al</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schulz, Therese</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Becker, Armin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stief, Christian G.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of robotic surgery</subfield><subfield code="d">London : Springer, 2007</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2017), 1 vom: 22. Mai, Seite 131-137</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)523858361</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2268283-1</subfield><subfield code="x">1863-2491</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:22</subfield><subfield code="g">month:05</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:131-137</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0707-z</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_636</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2039</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2070</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2086</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2093</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2107</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2116</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2144</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2188</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2446</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2472</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2548</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4246</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.65</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">22</subfield><subfield code="c">05</subfield><subfield code="h">131-137</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.3985367

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

A prospective randomised comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneoscopic approaches for robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in a single surgeon, single centre study

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?