Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty and Retroperitoneoscopic Pyeloplasty for Primary Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction

Background and Objectives: To compare laparoscopic transperitoneal versus retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction in a prospective randomized manner and assess overall results with long-term follow-up. Methods: In this prospective study, from 2008 to 2012, 112 cases of primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into 2 groups. Group I included patients who underwent transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty, and group II consisted of patients who underwent retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Demographic and clinical characteristics and postoperative and operative data were collected and analyzed. The statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher exact test, χ2 test, and Mann-Whitney U test for independent groups, and P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The total operative time and intracorporeal suturing time were significantly higher in group II than in group I (P < .001). The visual analog scale score for pain on postoperative day 1 and the requirement for tramadol were significantly higher in group I than in group II (P = .004). The hospital stay and the rate of temporary ileus were significantly greater (P < .036 and P < .02, respectively) in group I than in group II. The success rate of transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic pyeloplasty was 96.4% versus 96.6% with a mean follow-up period of 30.75 ± 4.85 months versus 30.99 ± 5.59 months (P < .88). Conclusion: Transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty is associated with significantly greater postoperative pain, a higher tramadol dose, a higher rate of ileus, and a longer hospital stay in comparison with retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Although the operative time for retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic pyeloplasty is significantly longer, the success rate remains the same for both procedures.

[1]  A. Raees,et al.  Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty , 2014 .

[2]  J. Guillotreau,et al.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: comparison between retroperitoneoscopic and transperitoneal approach. , 2010, Urology.

[3]  M. Graefen.  The modified Clavien system: a plea for a standardized reporting system for surgical complications. , 2010, European urology.

[4]  P. Fornara,et al.  Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: technique and results in 105 patients , 2010, World Journal of Urology.

[5]  Benjamin R. Lee,et al.  Ureteropelvic junction obstruction secondary to crossing vessels-to transpose or not? The robotic experience. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[6]  D. Teber,et al.  Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty , 2008, World journal of urology.

[7]  M. Bazeed,et al.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a prospective randomized comparison between the transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneoscopy. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[8]  Y. Hsu,et al.  Complications of Pure Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Surgery in Urology: The Taipei Veterans General Hospital Experience , 2007, Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA.

[9]  M. Pearle,et al.  Functional assessment of crossing vessels as etiology of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. , 2007, Urology.

[10]  T. Gasser,et al.  Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO): solving the technical difficulties. , 2006, European urology.

[11]  A. Minervini,et al.  Our experience with retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. , 2005, European urology.

[12]  B. Challacombe,et al.  Laparoscopic reconstructive urology , 2005, Journal of minimal access surgery.

[13]  L. Kavoussi,et al.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status , 2005, BJU international.

[14]  T. Gianduzzo,et al.  Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary and secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[15]  I. Gill,et al.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first decade , 2004, BJU international.

[16]  David I. Lee,et al.  Management of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction in the adult , 2003 .

[17]  H. Klingler,et al.  Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. , 2003, European urology.

[18]  E. McDougall,et al.  Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. , 2003, Journal of endourology.

[19]  L. Kavoussi,et al.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with concomitant pyelolithotomy. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[20]  C. Eden,et al.  Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: 50 consecutive cases , 2001, BJU international.

[21]  J. Patard,et al.  Extraperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a multicenter study of 55 procedures. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[22]  L R Kavoussi,et al.  Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. , 1999, The Journal of urology.

[23]  P. V. Van Cangh,et al.  Endopyelotomy. Prognostic factors and patient selection. , 1998, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[24]  P. Reddy,et al.  PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS: Therapeutic Implications , 1998 .

[25]  L R Kavoussi,et al.  LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOPLASTY: Indications, Technique, and Long-Term Outcome , 1998 .

[26]  P. Cangh,et al.  Prognostic Factors and Patient Selection , 1998 .

[27]  G. Bartsch,et al.  Laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. , 1996, Urology.

[28]  D. Milliner,et al.  Ureteropelvic junction obstruction with a simultaneous renal calculus: long-term followup. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[29]  G. Preminger,et al.  Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. , 1993, The Journal of urology.