Open Surgery in the Era of Minimally Invasive Surgery: Pyeloplasty via A Mini Flank Incision in the Treatment of Infants with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction.

PURPOSE To evaluate the clinical effects of open pyeloplasty via a mini flank incision in the treatment of infants with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 85 cases of infants with UPJO in our hospital from Jan. 2015 to Jan. 2018. The cases were divided into two groups according to the procedure: open pyeloplasty (n=45) and laparoscopic pyeloplasty (n=40). After 12~24 months of follow-up, the clinical effects of the two groups were compared. RESULTS There was no significant difference in age between the two groups (P = .1). The operation time, postoperative fasting time and the indwelling time of the perirenal drainage tube in the open group were shorter than those in the laparoscopic group (68.0 ± 15.3 minutes versus 79.6 ± 18.8, P = .002; 5 ± 1 hours versus 14 ± 8.2 hours, P =.001; 2.8 ± 0.8 days versus 3.7 ± 1.3 days, P = .001, respectively), and there was no significant difference in the volume of intraoperative bleeding (2.1±0.9 versus 2.2±0.6, P=.55). The number of recurrences and complications in both groups were 0 versus 2 (P = .22) and 5 versus 7 (P = .40), respectively. CONCLUSION Open pyeloplasty via a mini flank incision has the advantages of being minimally invasive, safe, effective, and easy to master, and it requires a short operation time. It is a reasonable option for the treatment of infants with UPJO despite this era of minimally invasive surgery.

[1]  Ilan Z. Kafka,et al.  Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP): does weight matter? , 2019, Pediatric Surgery International.

[2]  I. Yağmur,et al.  Mini-laparoscopic pyeloplasty in adults: Functional and cosmetic results. , 2018, Urology journal.

[3]  M. Colaco,et al.  Relative to open surgery, minimally-invasive renal and ureteral pediatric surgery offers no improvement in 30-day complications, yet requires longer operative time: Data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatrics , 2018, Investigative and clinical urology.

[4]  J. Gatti,et al.  Laparoscopic vs Open Pyeloplasty in Children: Results of a Randomized, Prospective, Controlled Trial , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[5]  Lu-gang Huang,et al.  An updated meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. , 2015, International journal of clinical and experimental medicine.

[6]  G. Tasian,et al.  The robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: gateway to advanced reconstruction. , 2015, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[7]  M. Reddy,et al.  The laparoscopic pyeloplasty: is there a role in the age of robotics? , 2015, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[8]  A. Darzi,et al.  Meta‐analysis of robot‐assisted vs conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children , 2014, BJU international.

[9]  Riccardo Autorino,et al.  Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2014, European urology.

[10]  Shilpi Gupta,et al.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: an analysis of first 100 cases and important lessons learned , 2011, International Urology and Nephrology.

[11]  A. Kutikov,et al.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the infant younger than 6 months--is it technically possible? , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[12]  A. Retik,et al.  Pediatric laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[13]  S. Fernbach,et al.  Ultrasound grading of hydronephrosis: Introduction to the system used by the society for fetal urology , 1993, Pediatric Radiology.