SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

Referencias del artículo

GARCIA-GALISTEO, E. et al. Comparación del tiempo operatorio y complicaciones entre la pieloplastia laparoscópica convencional y robótica. Actas Urol Esp [online]. 2011, vol.35, n.9, pp.523-528. ISSN 0210-4806.  http://dx.doi.org/10.4321/S0210-48062011000900003.

    1. Whitaker RH. Clinical assessment of pelvic and ureteral function. Urology. 1978; 12.2:146. [ Links ]

    2. O'Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S, Jones M, Pickup C, Atkinson C, et al. The long-term results of Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU international. 2001; 87:287-9. [ Links ]

    3. Amón Sesmero , Jose H, Del Valle González N, Rodríguez Toves LA, Conde Redondo C, Rodríguez Tesedo V, et al. Long-term follow-up of antegrade endopyelotomy. Factors that influence the outcome. Actas Urol Esp. 2009; 33:64-8. [ Links ]

    4. O'Reilly PH, Brooman PJ, Mak S, Jones M, Pickup C, Atkinson C, et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1193;150:1795-9. [ Links ]

    5. Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R. Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology. 2002; 60:509-13. [ Links ]

    6. Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, Palese MA, Berger AD, Thomas R, et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2008; 180:1391-6. [ Links ]

    7. Yanke BV, Lallas CD, Pagnani C, McGinnis DE, Bagley DH. The minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a review of our experience during the last decade. J Urol. 2008; 180:1397-402. [ Links ]

    8. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Annals Surg. 2004; 240:205-13. [ Links ]

    9. Murphy D, Challacombe B, Elhage O, Khan MS, Dasgupta P. Robotically assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. BJU international. 2008; 102:136-51. [ Links ]

    10. Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, Schuessler WW, Moore RG. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology. 1995; 46:791-5. [ Links ]

    11. Winfield HN. Management of adult ureteropelvic junction obstruction-is it time for a new gold standard?. J Urol. 2006; 176:866-7. [ Links ]

    12. Bansal P, Gupta A, Mongha R, Narayan S, Kundu AK, Chakraborty SC, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: Comparison of two surgical approaches- a single centre experience of three years. J Min Access Surg. 2008; 4:76-9. [ Links ]

    13. Tan BJ, Rastinehad AR, Marcovich R, Smith AD, Lee BR. Trends in ureteropelvic junction obstruction management among urologists in the United States. Urology. 2005; 65:260-4. [ Links ]

    14. Vögeli TA, Burchardt M, Fornara P, Rassweiler J, Sulser T, Laparoscopic Working Group of the German Urological Association. Current laparoscopic practice patterns in urology: results of a survey among urologists in Germany and Switzerland. Eur Urol. 2002; 42:441-6. [ Links ]

    15. 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; 208:576-86. [ Links ]

    16. Braga LH, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur Urol. 2009; 56:848-57. [ Links ]

    17. Rassweiler, Jens J, Dogu Teber, Thomas Frede. Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. World J Urol. 2008; 26:539-47. [ Links ]