Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children: experience of 226 cases at one centre

Introduction The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of laparoscopic versus open dismembered pyeloplasty in children. Material and methods Two hundred and twenty-six Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasties were performed, out of which 131 by open access (OP) and 95 by laparoscopic access (LP). Retrospective analysis of data was performed. The median follow-up was 3 years for LP patients and 6 years for OP patients (p < 0.05). Results Success was achieved in 87 (91.57%) patients who had LP surgeries and in 121 (91.7%) patients who had OP (p > 0.05). Eight patients in the LP group and nine in the OP group required another surgery because of recurrent UPJO, and one patient in the OP group required a nephrectomy. The median operating time was 125 min (range: 70–225) for LP surgeries and 90 (40–200) for OP surgeries (p < 0.05). In the last 30 LP procedures, operation time decreased to a median of 95 min. Improvement in ultrasound analysis of the kidney was achieved in 89.06% of patients who had LP and 82.35% of patients who had OP. A stable or better function of the kidney in diuretic renography was achieved in 87.5% of patients in the LP group and 96.15% of patients in the OP group. Conclusions Laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty is a highly efficient procedure employed to treat UPJO in children with comparable success rates in both groups. In experienced hands, it is possible to reduce the LP operation time to that comparable to the OP group.

[1]  O. Bratu,et al.  Clinical, surgical and morphological assessment of the pyeloureteral syndrome. , 2018, Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie.

[2]  W. Apoznański,et al.  Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty in children – long-term outcomes, how long follow up is necessary? , 2017, Central European journal of urology.

[3]  B. Durbin-Johnson,et al.  Outcomes after pediatric open, laparoscopic, and robotic pyeloplasty at academic institutions. , 2017, Journal of pediatric urology.

[4]  J. López,et al.  Comparative, Prospective, Case–Control Study of Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Long-term Results , 2017, Front. Pediatr..

[5]  J. Casey,et al.  Contemporary national comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty. , 2014, Journal of pediatric urology.

[6]  G. Chow,et al.  Population‐based comparison of laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in paediatric pelvi‐ureretic junction obstruction , 2013, BJU international.

[7]  J. Scheepe,et al.  Laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty in children from age of 3 years: our clinical outcomes compared with open surgery. , 2013, Journal of pediatric urology.

[8]  Tom de Jong,et al.  Nondismembered pyeloplasty in a pediatric population: results of 34 open and laparoscopic procedures. , 2011, Urology.

[9]  F. D. de Badiola,et al.  Simplified open approach to surgical treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in young children and infants. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[10]  J. Murphy,et al.  Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children: preliminary report of a prospective randomized trial. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[11]  S. Warmann,et al.  Functional outcome after laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children. , 2010, Journal of pediatric urology.

[12]  A. Neheman,et al.  Pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty: lessons learned from the first 52 cases. , 2009, Journal of endourology.

[13]  Hong-zhao Li,et al.  Retroperitoneoscopic Anderson–Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in infants and children: a 60-case report , 2009, Pediatric Surgery International.

[14]  G. Ninan,et al.  Dismembered pyeloplasty using double ‘J’ stent in infants and children , 2009, Pediatric Surgery International.

[15]  M. Srougi,et al.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: Is the outcome different in children under 2 years of age? , 2008, Journal of pediatric urology.

[16]  D. Bägli,et al.  Outcome analysis and cost comparison between externalized pyeloureteral and standard stents in 470 consecutive open pyeloplasties. , 2008, Journal of Urology.

[17]  M. Desai,et al.  Transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children. , 2007, Journal of endourology.

[18]  B. Kropp,et al.  Pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty: 4-year experience. , 2007, Journal of endourology.

[19]  V. Jayanthi,et al.  Which is better--retroperitoneoscopic or laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children? , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[20]  M. Reddy,et al.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty compared with open pyeloplasty in children. , 2007, Journal of endourology.

[21]  A Najmaldin,et al.  Early experience of tele‐robotic sugery in children , 2007, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[22]  A. Khoury,et al.  Pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty in a referral center: lessons learned. , 2007, Journal of endourology.

[23]  Paul F. Zelkovic,et al.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient: hand sewn anastomosis versus robotic assisted anastomosis--is there a difference? , 2006, The Journal of urology.

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

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

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