SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT
VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2021 ) > List of Articles
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.
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.