World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2021 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Evaluation of Open vs Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children: An Institutional Experience

Vedamurthy Reddy Pogula, Ershad Hussain Galeti, Karthikesh Omkaram, Mallikarjuna Reddy Nalubolu

Keywords : Laparoscopy, Open surgery, Pyeloplasty

Citation Information : Pogula VR, Galeti EH, Omkaram K, Nalubolu MR. Evaluation of Open vs Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children: An Institutional Experience. World J Lap Surg 2021; 14 (3):173-176.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1483

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 05-03-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Background: An ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction is a blockage of urine passage from the renal pelvis to the upper ureter. Back pressure inside the renal pelvis can cause renal damage and function deterioration. In children, the adynamic segment, crossing vessel, ureteral valves, and sticky bands are the most common causes of UPJ obstruction. The surgical rebuilding of the UPJ to drain and decompress the kidney is known as pyeloplasty. The process, benefits, limits, and post-operative results of open and laparoscopic pyeloplasty are examined in this research. Materials and methods: The study included children diagnosed with pelviureteric junction obstruction in the Urology Department at our institute between January 2016 and December 2019. Ultrasound, micturating cystourethrogram, and diethylenetriamine pentaacetate (DTPA) were used to evaluate them. Results: Around 45 of the 70 instances involved boys. Twenty-one were discovered prenatally and confirmed postnatally using ultrasonography. The most prevalent kind of presentation was abdominal mass in 44 (42.8%) of the youngsters. There were 35 open and 35 laparoscopic pyeloplasties performed. The laparoscopic pyeloplasty group had a mean total operating time of 99.2 minutes with stent implantation, compared to 80.5 minutes in the open group. The mean glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and differential renal function improved in both groups; however, the difference was not statistically significant (p >0.05). The postoperative analgesic need was much reduced in the laparoscopic group as compared to open pyeloplasty. Conclusion: The major drawback of laparoscopic pyeloplasty is the length of time it takes to complete the procedure. It necessitates exceptional intracorporeal suturing skills, and the benefit is that it has a lower rate of morbidity, shorter hospital stays, and better aesthetic results than the open technique.

  1. Boylu U, Basatac C, Turan T, et al. Comparison of Surgical and Functional Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Open Pyeloplasty. J Laparoendoscop Adv Surg Techn 2012;22(10):968–971. DOI: 10.1089/lap.2012.0142.
  2. Troxel S, Das S, Helfer E, et al. Laparoscopy Versus Dorsal Lumbotomy for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction Repair. J Urol 2006;176(3):1073–1076. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.072.
  3. Persky L, Krause JR, Boltuch RL. Initial Complications and Late Results in Dismembered Pyeloplasty. J Urol 1977;118(1 Part 2):162–165. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)57936-7.
  4. Badlani G, Eshghi M, Smith AD. Percutaneous Surgery for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction (Endopyelotomy): Technique and Early Results. J Urol 1986;135(1):26–28. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)45503-0.
  5. Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, et al. Comparison of Open and Endourologic Approaches to the Obstructed Ureteropelvic Junction. Urology 1995;46(6):791–795. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)80345-8.
  6. Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, et al. Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: The First 100 Cases. J Urol 2002;167(3):1253–1256. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)65276-7.
  7. Zhang X, Li H-Z, Ma X, et al. Retrospective Comparison of Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Versus Open Dismembered Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction. J Urol 2006;176(3):1077–1080. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.073.
  8. Bonnard A, Fouquet V, Carricaburu E, et al. Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty In Children. J Urol 2005;173(5):1710–1713. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000154169.74458.32.
  9. Klingler H Christoph, Remzi M, Janetschek G, et al. Comparison of Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty Techniques in Treatment of Uretero-Pelvic Junction Obstruction. Eur Urol 2003;44(3):340–345. DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00297-5.
  10. Soulié M, Thoulouzan M, Seguin P, et al. Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty with a Minimal Incision: Comparison of Two Surgical Approaches. Urology 2001;57(3):443–447. DOI:10.1016/s0090-4295(00)01065-7.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.