Abstract
Background
This study aimed to determine whether the morbidity and outcome rates for laparoscopic transperitoneal dismembered pyeloplasty are different from those for dismembered pyeloplasty, to analyze the learning curve of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, and to determine whether preoperative stent placement affects outcome.
Methods
For this study, 49 laparoscopic pyeloplasties (period 2000–2005) and 51 open pyeloplasties (period 1992–2003) were reviewed.
Results
Compared with open procedures, laparoscopic procedures were associated with a longer mean operating time (159 vs 91 min; p < 0.001), a shorter mean time to normal diet (38 vs 72 h; p < 0.001), and a similar mean hospital stay (5 days; p = 0.6). The operative complication rates were 17% for primary laparoscopic pyeloplasties and 24% for primary open pyeloplasties. The rates were higher for secondary procedures. The success rates for primary and secondary procedures were, respectively, 98% (41/42) and 57% (4/7) for laparoscopy and 96% (46/48) and 67% (2/3) for open surgery. Failed procedures showed no improvement in loin pain or obstruction. At the 6-month follow-up evaluation, 29% of the open surgery patients but none of the laparoscopic surgery patients reported wound pain.
Conclusions
The efficacy of laparoscopic pyeloplasty is equivalent to that of open pyeloplasty, with less wound pain at 6 months. The outcome for secondary procedures is inferior. There was a trend toward a reduction in complications and the conversion rates with time, suggesting that there may be a learning curve of approximately 30 laparoscopic pyeloplasty cases. Preoperative stent insertion did not seem to affect any objective measures of outcome for laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adeyoju AB, Hrouda D, Gill IS (2004) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first decade. BJU Int 94:264–267
Bauer JJ, Bischoff JT, Moore RG, Chen RN, Iverson AJ, Kavoussi LR (1999) Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol 162:692–695
Bonnard A, Fouquet V, Carricaburu E, Aigrain Y, El-Ghoneimi A (2005) Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 173:1710–1713
Davenport K, Minervini A, Timoney AG, Keeley FX Jr (2005) Our experience with retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Eur Urol 48:973–977
Desai MM, Desai MR, Gill IS (2004) Endopyeloplasty versus endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 64:16–21
Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ong AM, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW (2005) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. BJU Int 95(Suppl 2):102–105
Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ (2003) Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 44:340–345
Mandhani A, Kumar D, Kumar A, Kapoor R, Dubey D, Srivastava A, Bhandari M (2005) Safety profile and complications of transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a critical analysis. J Endourol 19:797–802
Moon DA, El-Shazly MA, Chang CM, Gianduzzo TR, Eden CG (2006) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: evolution of a new gold standard. Urology 67:932–936
Ost MC, KKaye JD, Guttman MJ, Lee BR, Smith AD (2005) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus antegrade endopyelotomy: comparison in 100 patients and a new algorithm for the minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 66:47–51
Pace KT, Dyer SJ, Stewart RJ, Honey RJ, Poulin EC, Schlachta CM, Mamazza J (2003) Health-related quality of life after laparoscopic and open nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 17:143–152
Rassweiler J, Fornara P, Weber M, Janetschek G, Fahlenkamp D, Henkel T, Beer M, Stackl W, Boeckmann W, Recker F, Lampel A, Fischer C, Humke U, Miller K (1998) Laparoscopic nephrectomy: the experience of the laparoscopic working group of the German Urologic Association. J Urol 160:18–21
Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM (1993) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 150:1795–1799
Soulie M, Thoulouzan M, Seguin P, Mouly P, Vazzoler N, Pontonnier F, Plante P (2001) Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty with a minimal incision: comparison of two surgical approaches. Urology 57:443–447
Tan BJ, Smith AD (2004) Ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair: when, how, what? Curr Opin Urol 14:55–59
Zhang X, Li HZ, Ma X, Zheng T, Lang B, Zhang J, Fu B, Xu K, Guo XL (2006) Retrospective comparison of retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 176:1077–1080
Zhang X, Li HZ, Wang SG, Ma X, Zheng T, Fu B, Zhang J, Ye ZQ (2005) Retroperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: experience with 50 cases. Urology 66:514–517
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Calvert, R.C., Morsy, M.M., Zelhof, B. et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in 100 patients with pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Surg Endosc 22, 411–414 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9436-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9436-0