Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome
- PMID: 10458344
- DOI: 10.1097/00005392-199909010-00016
Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome
Abstract
Purpose: We determine the subjective and objective durability of laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty.
Materials and methods: From August 1993 to April 1997, 42 patients underwent laparoscopic pyeloplasty (laparoscopy group) with a minimum clinical followup of 12 months (mean 22). Subjective outcomes and objective findings were compared to those of 35 patients who underwent open pyeloplasty (open surgery group) from August 1986 to April 1997 with a minimum clinical followup of 12 months (mean 58). We assessed clinical outcome based on responses to a subjective analog pain and activity scale. In addition, radiographic outcome was assessed based on the results of the most recent radiographic study.
Results: Of the 42 laparoscopy group patients 90% (38) were pain-free (26, 62%) or had significant improvement in flank pain (12, 29%) after surgery. Two patients had only minor improvement and 2 had no improvement in pain. Surgery failed in only 1 patient with complete obstruction. A patent ureteropelvic junction was demonstrated in 98% (41 of 42 patients) of the laparoscopy group on the most recent radiographic study (mean radiographic followup 15 months). Of the 35 open surgery group patients 91% were pain-free (21, 60%) or significantly improved (11, 31%) after surgery. One patient had only minor improvement and 2 were worse.
Conclusions: Pain relief, improved activity level and relief of obstruction outcomes are equivalent for laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty.
Similar articles
-
Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.J Urol. 2003 Jun;169(6):2037-40. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000067180.78134.da. J Urol. 2003. PMID: 12771713
-
Comparison of open and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction surgery: report of 49 cases.Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2011 Dec;83(4):169-74. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2011. PMID: 22670313
-
Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus open pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children.J Pediatr Urol. 2016 Dec;12(6):401.e1-401.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.06.010. Epub 2016 Jul 21. J Pediatr Urol. 2016. PMID: 27614698
-
Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty.Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2007 Jun;59(2):167-77. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2007. PMID: 17571053 Review.
-
Minimally invasive surgical management of pelvic-ureteric junction obstruction: update on the current status of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty.BJU Int. 2009 Dec;104(11):1722-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08682.x. Epub 2009 Jun 10. BJU Int. 2009. PMID: 19519760 Review.
Cited by
-
Laparoscopic management of hydronephrosis in children.World J Urol. 2004 Dec;22(6):415-7. doi: 10.1007/s00345-004-0458-0. Epub 2004 Dec 17. World J Urol. 2004. PMID: 15605250
-
Laparoscopy in pediatric urology.Curr Urol Rep. 2001 Apr;2(2):132-7. doi: 10.1007/s11934-001-0010-3. Curr Urol Rep. 2001. PMID: 12084282 Review.
-
Minimally invasive surgery.Arch Dis Child. 2005 May;90(5):537-42. doi: 10.1136/adc.2004.062760. Arch Dis Child. 2005. PMID: 15851444 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Retroperitoneal laparoscopic non-dismembered pyeloplasty for uretero-pelvic junction obstruction due to crossing vessels: A matched-paired analysis and review of literature.Asian J Urol. 2018 Jul;5(3):172-181. doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.03.001. Epub 2018 Mar 6. Asian J Urol. 2018. PMID: 29988898 Free PMC article.
-
The minimally invasive management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in horseshoe kidneys.World J Urol. 2011 Feb;29(1):91-5. doi: 10.1007/s00345-010-0523-9. Epub 2010 Mar 5. World J Urol. 2011. PMID: 20204377
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous