Laparoscopically assisted pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a transperitoneal versus a retroperitoneal approach

ObjectivesTo compare the results of a transperitoneal laparoscopic-assisted dismembered pyeloplasty (TLADP) with an extraperitoneal laparoscopic-assisted dismembered pyeloplasty in the management of children with ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction. MethodsEighteen children (mean 29 months, range 3 months to 10 years) underwent TLADP. An additional 11 children (mean 3.6 years, range 3 months to 11 years) underwent similar procedures through a retroperitoneal approach (RLADP). We retrospectively compared the operative time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, and follow-up in both the groups. ResultsThe mean operative time was significantly shorter in the TLADP group (100.6 vs. 119.2 min, P<0.05). The duration of postoperative hospital stay was better in the RLADP group than that in the TLADP group (5.3 vs. 4.2 days) but was not statistically significant. No intraoperative complications occurred in either group, but postoperative urinoma was found in one patient of the TLADP group and persistent postoperative pain was found in one patient of the RLADP group. The mean follow-up was 5.6 years in TLADP (range 4–9 years) and 26 months in RLADP (range 6 months to 4 years). A significant improvement in renal function was achieved in both the groups. We had to shift to an open technique for two patients of the TLADP group; both were obese children, 4 and 10 years of age. ConclusionBoth TLADP and RLADP have been used successfully in the management of UPJ obstruction in children. We believe that RLADP is more suitable in older and obese children.

[1]  H. Emir Minimal invasive surgery in pediatric urology , 2010, Turkish Archives of Pediatrics.

[2]  Le Thanh Hung,et al.  Transpelvic anastomotic stenting: A good option for diversion after pyeloplasty in children , 2011 .

[3]  Cong Le,et al.  Transpelvic anastomotic stenting: a good option for diversion after pyeloplasty in children. , 2011, Journal of pediatric urology.

[4]  P. Caione,et al.  One-port retroperitoneoscopic assisted pyeloplasty versus open dismembered pyeloplasty in young children: preliminary experience. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[5]  D. Bägli,et al.  Comparative analysis of 3 different approaches for Pediatric Pyeloplasty , 2008 .

[6]  K. Palmer,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a review of minimally invasive treatment options for ureteropelvic junction obstruction , 2008, Journal of robotic surgery.

[7]  I. Gill,et al.  Comparison of surgical approaches to ureteropelvic junction obstruction: Endopyeloplasty versus endopyelotomy versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty , 2007, Current urology reports.

[8]  P. Furness,et al.  The minimally invasive open pyeloplasty. , 2006, Journal of pediatric urology.

[9]  A. El-Ghoneimi Laparoscopic management of hydronephrosis in children , 2004, World Journal of Urology.

[10]  M. A. Gohary Laparoscopic-Assisted Pyeloplasty in Children , 2004 .

[11]  C. Abbou,et al.  Justification of extraperitoneal laparoscopic access for surgery of the upper urinary tract , 2004, Current urology reports.

[12]  H. Winfield,et al.  A transperitoneal laparoscopic approach to endourology , 2001, Current urology reports.

[13]  H L Tan,et al.  Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children. , 1999, The Journal of urology.