Published Oct 19, 2018



PLUMX
Almetrics
 
Dimensions
 

Google Scholar
 
Search GoogleScholar


Feddy Moreno

Pedro Villamizar

Valentina Corchuelo

Miguel Rodríguez

Stephanie Ordoñez

Marcela Tejada

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Abstract

Introduction: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty is a minimally invasive procedure used to surgically correct stenosis, blockage or obstruction of the ureteropelvic junction or pyeloureteral junction. Objective: To explore the different models of training in minimally invasive surgery for laparoscopic pyeloplasty that are reported in the literature. Materials and methods: A literature review with systematic search was carried out in PubMed, Google Scholar and SciELO, through the PRISMA Declaration and the combination of the medical descriptors in health “Model training AND laparoscopic pyeloplasty”. In addition, GoPubMed was used to obtain bibliometric information that contextualized the research and publication networks among the different training models for laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Results: We included 17 references in the systematic review of the literature with which the discussion was made based on the usability, aesthetics and operative time of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Conclusion: All the training models contribute to those operators reduce surgical times, reaching values close to laparoscopic pyeloplasty in situ, including open pyeloplasty. In particular, anatomopathological models made with silicone modeling achieve a remarkable approach to the morphological reality from the aesthetics of the structures and allow increasing the number of surgical attempts and the number of hours of practice.

Keywords

surgery; reconstructive surgical procedures; laparoscopy; kidney pelvis; ureter.cirugía; procedimientos quirúrgicos reconstructivos; laparoscopia; pelvis renal; uréter.

References
1. Vittimberga Jr FJ, Foley DP, Meyers WC, Callery MP. Laparoscopic surgery and the systemic immune response. Ann Surg. 1998;227(3):326-34.
2. Ochsner JL. Minimally invasive surgical procedures. Ochsner J. 2000;2(3):135-6.
3. Lera JM. Reflexiones sobre el pasado, presente y futuro de la cirugía mínimamente Invasive. An Sist Sanit Navar. 2005;28(Supl 3):7-10.
4. Castillo O, Cortés O. Complicaciones en cirugía laparoscópica urológica. Actas Urol Esp. 2006;30(5):541-54.
5. Belibasakis I, Kolostoumpis G, Makrygiannaki K. Current trends in minimally invasive reconstructive urology. J Robotic Surg. 2012;6(3):179-87.
6. Anderson JC, Hynes W. Retrocaval ureter: A case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol. 1949;21(3):209-14.
7. Marcovich R, Jacobson AI, Aldana JP, Lee BR, Smith AD. Practice trends in contemporary management of adult ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2003;62(1):22-5.
8. Escobar F, Arbeláez S, Correa JJ, Gaviria F, Bonilla A, Ramírez LF. Experiencia en pieloplastia laparoscópica. Rev Urol Colomb. 2006;15(1):79-84.
9. Eden CG. Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A critical analysis of results. Eur Urol. 2007;52(4):983-9.
10. Valdivia JB, Sánchez MA, Sánchez M. Pieloplastia laparoscópica. Arch Esp Urol. 2001;55(6):679-86.
11. Fernández A, Carreño J, González R, Menéndez A, Albelo Y, Feder O. Pieloplastia laparoscópica: Experiencia inicial. Revista Cubana de Urología [Internet]. 2012;1(1):84-94. Disponible en: http://www.revurologia.sld.cu/index.php/rcu/article/view/10/13
12. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1795-9.
13. Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, Schuessler WW, Moore RG. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology. 1995;46(6):791-5.
14. O'Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S, Jones M, Pickup C, Atkinson C et al. The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int. 2001;87(4):287-9.
15. Moon DA, El Shazly MA, Chang CM, Gianduzzo TR, Eden CG. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Evolution of a new gold standard. Urology. 2006;67(5):932-6.
16. Rassweiler JJ, Subotic S, Feist-Schwenk M, Sugiono M, Schulze M, Teber D, et al. Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Long-term experience with an algorithm for laser endopyelotomy and laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2007;177(3):1000-5.
17. El-Shazly MA, Moon DA, Eden CG. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Status and review of literature. J Endourol. 2007;21(7):673-8.
18. Johnston JH, Evans JP, Glassberg KI, Shapiro SR. Pelvic hydronephrosis in children: A review of 219 personal cases. J Urol. 1977;117(1):97-101.
19. Koff SA. Pathophysiology of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Clinical and experimental observations. Urol Clin North Am. 1990;17(2):263-72.
20. Sánchez D, López J, Arocena J, Sanz G, Díez F, Rosell D, et al. Estenosis de la unión pieloureteral: Exposición de nuestra experiencia y revisión de la literatura. Actas Urol Esp. 2000;24(5):367-74.
21. Landa S, Maldonado W, Hernández G, Zaldiva J, Zepeda JT, Velázquez. Obstrucción pieloureteral: Revisión de 175 casos. Urología Pediátrica. 2002;17(1):32-8.
22. Peters CA, Schlussel RN, Retik AB. Paediatric laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1995;153(6):1962-5.
23. Meretyk I, Meretyk S, Clayman RV. Endopyelotomy: Comparison of ureteroscopic retrograde and antegrade percutaneous techniques. J Urol. 1992;148(3):775-82.
24. Tan HL. Laparoscopic Andersen-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children. J Urol. 1999;162(3 Pt 2):1045-7.
25. Casale P, Grady RW, Joyner BD, Zeltser IS, Figueroa TE, Mitchell ME. Comparison of dismembered and nondismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient. J Endourol. 2004;18(9):875-8.
26. Reddy M, Nerli RB, Bashetty R, Ravish IR. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children. J Urol. 2005;174(2):700-2.
27. Sweeney DD, Smaldone MC, Docimo SG. Minimally invasive surgery for urologic disease in children. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2007;4(1):26-38.
28. Turrà F, Escolino M, Farina A, Settimi A, Esposito C, Varlet F. Pyeloplasty techniques using minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in pediatric patients. Transl Pediatr. 2016;5(4):251-5.
29. Keeley FX Jr, Eden CG, Tolley DA, Joyce AD. The British Association of Urological Surgeons: Guidelines for training in laparoscopy. BJU Int. 2007;100(2):379-81.
30. Aggarwal R, Moorthy K, Darzi A. Laparoscopic skills training and assessment. Br J Surg. 2004;91(12):1549-58.
31. Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Fraser SA, Stanbridge D, Ghitulescu G, et al. Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 2004;240(3):518-28.
32. Zhang X, Zhang GX, Wang BJ, Ma X, Fu B, Shi TP et al. A multimodal training program for laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2009;23(2):307-11.
33. Scott DJ, Bergen PC, Rege RV, Laycock R, Tesfay ST, Valentine RJ, et al. Laparoscopic training on bench models: better and more cost effective than operating room experience? J Am Coll Surg. 2000;191(3):272-83.
34. Scott DJ, Young WN, Tesfay ST, Frawley WH, Rege RV, Jones DB. Laparoscopic skills training. Am J Surg. 2001;182(2):137-42.
35. Ramachandran A, Kurien A, Patil P, Symons S, Ganpule A, Muthu V et al. A novel training model for laparoscopic pyeloplasty using chicken crop. J Endourol. 2008;22(4):725-8.
36. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.
37. Cicione A, Autorino R, Laguna MP, De Sio M, Micali S, Turna B et al. Three-dimensional technology facilitates surgical performance of novice laparoscopy surgeons: A quantitative assessment on a porcine kidney model. Urology. 2015;85(6):1252-6.
38. Cheung CL, Looi T, Lendvay TS, Drake JM, Farhat WA. Use of 3-dimensional printing technology and silicone modeling in surgical simulation: Development and face validation in pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Surg Educ. 2014;71(5):762-7.
39. Poniatowski LH, Wolf JS Jr, Nakada SY, Reihsen TE, Sainfort F, Sweet RM. Validity and acceptability of a high-fidelity physical simulation model for training of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2014;28(4):393-8.
40. Zhang J, Liu C. A training model for laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2013;33(10):1541-3.
41. Díaz-Güemes Martín-Portugués I, Hernández-Hurtado L, Usón-Casaús J, Sánchez-Hurtado MA, Sánchez-Margallo FM. Ureteral obstruction swine model through laparoscopy and single port for training on laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Int J Med Sci. 2013;10(8):1047-52.
42. Jiang C, Liu M, Chen J, Wang P, Lin T, Xu K et al. Construct validity of the chicken crop model in the simulation of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2013;27(8):1032-6.
43. Raza SJ, Soomroo KQ, Ather MH. “Latex glove” laparoscopic pyeloplasty model: A novel method for simulated training. Urol J. 2011;8(4):283-6.
44. Valero RJ, Moanack J, Cruz G, Sánchez-Ismayel A, Sánchez-Salas R, García-Seguí A. Animal model for training in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Actas Urol Esp. 2012;36(1):54-9.
45. Torricelli FC, Guglielmetti G, Duarte RJ, Srougi M. Laparoscopic skill laboratory in urological surgery: tools and methods for resident training. Int Braz J Urol. 2011;37(1):108-11.
46. Yang B, Zhang ZS, Xiao L, Wang LH, Xu CL, Sun YH. A novel training model for retroperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2010;24(8):1345-9.
47. Teber D, Guven S, Yaycioglu O, Ugurlu O, Sanli O, Gozen AS, et al. Single-knot running suture anastomosis (one-knot pyeloplasty) for laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: Training model on a porcine bladder and clinical results. Int Urol Nephrol. 2010;42(3):609-14.
48. Passerotti CC, Passerotti AM, Dall'Oglio MF, Leite KR, Nunes RL, Srougi M, et al. Comparing the quality of the suture anastomosis and the learning curves associated with performing open, freehand, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in a swine animal model. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208(4):576-86.
49. Abraham JB, Abdelshehid CS, Lee HJ, Alipanah R, Andrade LA, Sargent ER, et al. LapED 4-In-1 silicone training aid for practicing laparoscopic skills and tasks: A preliminary evaluation. J Endourol. 2008;22(6):1351-7.
50. Fu B, Zhang X, Lang B, Xu K, Zhang J, Ma X, et al. New model for training in laparoscopic dismembered ureteropyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2007;21(11):1381-5.
51. Ooi J, Lawrentschuk N, Murphy DL. Training model for open or laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2006;20(2):149-52.
How to Cite
Moreno, F., Villamizar, P., Corchuelo, V., Rodríguez, M., Ordoñez, S., & Tejada, M. (2018). Training Models in Minimally Invasive Surgery for Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Review of the Literature. Universitas Medica, 59(4). https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.umed59-4.mecm
Section
Short Reviews