ESPU Congress 2018 - Abstract Book

207 11–14 APRIL, 2018, HELSINKI, FINLAND A new procedure with pyelography and robotic ureterolysis was performed after 15 months because of persistent colicky pain. Then, in 2017, persistent symptomatic obstruction required further treat- ment with a robotic uretero-calicostomy. RESULTS The patient was discharged on 9 th post-operative day without any major complications. Nephrostomy was removed after 3 weeks and JJ stent after 5 weeks. Ultrasound imaging after 8 weeks showed significant reduction of hydronephrosis. After 7 months she doesn't complain of any symptoms and the imaging shows conserved renal function and reduction of hydronephrosis. CONCLUSIONS Robotic surgery is a safe approach even for the most complex pediatric urological procedures. Uretero-calicostomy is an uncommon procedure generally used as salvage surgery for failed pyeloplasties. Even in this difficult situation, the robotic choice has demonstrated its higher capacity of handling and maneuvring, allowing a satisfactory result. VD-17 (VS without presentation) NOVEL TECHNIQUE IN BURIED PENIS RECONSTRUCTION: COMPLETE EXCISION OF INELASTIC DARTOS FASCIA WITHOUT ANCHORING EITHER PENOPUBIC OR PENOSCROTAL JUNCTION Arry RODJANI, Widi ATMOKO and Irfan WAHYUDI Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Department of Urology, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, INDONESIA PURPOSE Buried penis is a pathology for which several reconstructive techniques are described. We de- scribed a novel technique and evaluated the efficacy and safety of our technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS From June 2009 and February 2015, 28 patients underwent surgical repair of buried penis with our novel technique in the hands of two surgeon (A.R. and I.W.) who had same principle technique. The principle of our technique is complete separation of inelastic dartos fascia from the skin and penis and excision of inelastic dartos fascia until penopubic and penoscrotal region without anchoring either the penopubic or penoscrotal area. We administered a questionnaire asking questions about penile size, morphology, and voiding status to evaluate parental satisfaction. RESULTS The mean age of patients at the time of operation was 9.50 ± 2.09 years, and the mean duration of follow-up was 23.27 ± 16.75 months. The mean satisfaction grades for penile size, morphology, and voiding function were improve (p < 0.05). The mean preoperative satisfaction grade concerning penile size was 0.82 ± 0.76, and it improved postoperatively to 2.67 ± 0.52 at the last follow-up (p < 0.001). The mean preoperative satisfaction grade for penile morphology was 0.86 ± 0.55, which improved to 2.12 ± 0.40 at the last follow-up visit (p < 0.001). The mean preoperative satisfaction grade for voiding function was 1.10 ± 0.72, which improved to 2.94 ± 0.86 at the last follow-up visit (p < 0.001). There were no complications such as postoperative infection and tissue necrosis. Edema developed in 2 patients, but resolved spontaneously after 1 month. CONCLUSIONS Our method of buried penis correction was found to be technically feasible and safe. It results in a good cosmetic appearance and excellent postoperative satisfaction rates in terms of size, morphology, and voiding function.