Safety profile and complications of transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a critical analysis.

PURPOSE To critically assess the safety profile and complications of the transperitoneal approach to laparoscopic pyeloplasty at our center. PATIENTS AND METHODS From January 2002 to January 2004, 92 patients with a mean age of 22.78 +/- 15.15 years (range 14 months-65 years) with primary (N = 90) or secondary (N = 2) ureteropelvic junction obstruction were treated by transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty and were evaluated for this study. Renal stones were present in eight patients. A double-J stent was placed antegrade in 50 patients and in the rest through cystoscopy. All patients were followed up clinically and by renal scan. RESULTS Of the 92 cases (93 renal units), 6 were converted to open pyeloplasty. Dismembered pyeloplasty was performed in 59, Fengerplasty in 8, and Foley Y-V-plasty in 20 units. A crossing vessel was present in 15 units (16.12%). The mean estimated blood loss was 63.6 mL (range, 30-200 mL). The mean operative time was 179.4 minutes (range 80-350 minutes). Overall, 17 patients (18.4%) had complications. Six patients had paralytic ileus and another six had increased drain output, which delayed the hospital stay to 7 days. Pyelonephritis and port-site hernia occurred in one patient each. Four patients required ancillary procedures: ureteroscopy for a migrating stent (1), percutaneous antegrade stenting (1), and SWL for residual stone (2). The mean hospital stay was 4 days (range 2-7 days). Of the 87 units (86 patients), 81 (93.3%) have shown improvement in symptoms and drainage pattern on renal scan at a mean followup of 12 (3-27) months. CONCLUSION The transperitoneal approach to pyeloplasty is safe and effective, although patients with large stone bulk and multiple stones should be considered for an alternative approach. The double-J stent should be checked carefully for proper placement. Hemostasis of the cut margin of the renal pelvis, watertight anastomosis, and adequate drainage should also be ensured.

[1]  Anant Kumar,et al.  Laparoscopic Surgery in Urology , 2006 .

[2]  M. Bhandari,et al.  Is antegrade stenting superior to retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty? , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[3]  J. Kaouk,et al.  Laparoscopic reconstructive urology. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

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

[5]  S. Loening,et al.  Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty--the method of choice in the presence of an enlarged renal pelvis and crossing vessels. , 2002, European urology.

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

[7]  Louis R Kavoussi,et al.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: the first 100 cases. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

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

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

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

[11]  R. Clayman,et al.  Acucise endopyelotomy: assessment of long-term durability. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[12]  L. Kavoussi,et al.  Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. , 1995, Urology.

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

[14]  G. Badlani,et al.  Results of 212 consecutive endopyelotomies: an 8-year followup. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[15]  R. Clayman,et al.  Endopyelotomy: comparison of ureteroscopic retrograde and antegrade percutaneous techniques. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[16]  L. Persky,et al.  Initial complications and late results in dismembered pyeloplasty. , 1977, The Journal of urology.