Comparative Evaluation of Laparoscopic Versus Open Nephrectomy and Pyeloplasty in Canines

Minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery has been adopted in veterinary medicine for many procedures, yet its benefits over open surgery for kidney operations in dogs are still being defined. This review compares laparoscopic and open approaches to nephrectomy and pyeloplasty in dogs. Methods: We reviewed published veterinary and human studies of nephrectomy and pyeloplasty, focusing on canine data when available. Outcomes of interest included operative time, pain/analgesia requirements, complication rates, hospital stay, and long-term success. In canine nephrectomy, laparoscopic techniques produce smaller incisions, less bleeding, and shorter hospitalization than open celiotomy [۲][۶]. A case series of ۱۶ dogs showed that laparoscopic nephrectomy (using vessel-sealing or clips with morcellation) was feasible in all dogs with manageable complications [۳]. In experimental and clinical ureteronephrectomy series, laparoscopy was successful in healthy dogs (no conversions or major hemorrhage [۲]) and feasible in clinical cases (conversion needed in ۲ of ۹ dogs due to hemorrhage or hydroureter [۴]). Laparoscopic pyeloplasty is uncommon in dogs, but human meta-analyses report shorter hospital stays and reduced pain for laparoscopic vs open pyeloplasty, with equivalent success rates [۷]. Laparoscopic nephrectomy in dogs offers perioperative advantages (smaller wounds, less pain) over open surgery, with comparable clinical outcomes. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty data in dogs are lacking, but human data suggest similar efficacy and lower morbidity for the laparoscopic approach [۷]. Veterinary adoption of laparoscopy may improve recovery, though surgeon experience and case selection remain important.

کلیدواژه ها:

Pyeloplasty ، Canine ، Laparoscopy ، Nephrectomy