Page 34 - tmp

Evaluation of Open vs Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children
open surgery. In 10 patients, the DTPA renogram remained steady, 5 stays, and superior aesthetic results. For PUJ blockage, laparoscopic
in the open group and 5 in the laparoscopic group. The differential pyeloplasty has become the gold standard.
function of the remaining two decreased. Both of the youngsters
who had their pyeloplasty redone were from the open group. The
difference in improvement in differential renal function between Authors contrIbutIons
the two groups was not significant (p >0.05; Table 3). All authors have read and approved the manuscript.
After pyeloplasty, the postoperative analgesic need was way
lower in the laparoscopic group than those in the open group. Acknowledgments
The period of analgesic usage was also significantly reduced in
the laparoscopic group. In the laparoscopic group, the mean The authors extend their sincere thanks to all the children and their
postoperative hospital stay was 3.15 days, contrast to 8.25 days in parents who participated in the study.
the open group. The average follow-up time for open surgeries was
33 months, whereas it was 34 months for laparoscopic procedures. references
In the laparoscopic group, there has only been one open surgery
conversion. Two individuals in the open group had pyeloplasty 1. Boylu U, Basatac C, Turan T, et al. Comparison of Surgical and
redone due to a significant decline in differential renal function. Functional Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Open Pyeloplasty. J
Laparoendoscop Adv Surg Techn 2012;22(10):968–971. DOI: 10.1089/
Individuals in the laparoscopic group exhibited less scarring at the lap.2012.0142.
incision site than those in the open group. 2. Troxel S, Das S, Helfer E, et al. Laparoscopy Versus Dorsal
The success rate of laparoscopic pyeloplasty is extremely Lumbotomy for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction Repair. J Urol
7
high, at 87.98%. We obtained a 97.1% success rate in this study. 2006;176(3):1073–1076. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.072.
Conversion to an open method was seen as a failure. 3. Persky L, Krause JR, Boltuch RL. Initial Complications and Late Results
8,9
In the published series, the sole drawback seems to be in Dismembered Pyeloplasty. J Urol 1977;118(1 Part 2):162–165. DOI:
7
the extended operative time. However, Zhang et al. found 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)57936-7.
that the laparoscopic (retroperitoneal) group took less time 4. Badlani G, Eshghi M, Smith AD. Percutaneous Surgery for
Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction (Endopyelotomy): Technique
than the open group. As laparoscopic surgery becomes more and Early Results. J Urol 1986;135(1):26–28. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-
ingrained in resident training, more complicated methods, such 5347(17)45503-0.
as intracorporeal suturing, become less intimidating. Furthermore, 5. Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, et al. Comparison of Open
advanced intracorporeal suturing and knotting skills, as well as the and Endourologic Approaches to the Obstructed Ureteropelvic
development of new robotic equipment, may minimize operating Junction. Urology 1995;46(6):791–795. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-
10
time. The Da Vinci robot’s performance-enhancing function 4295(99)80345-8.
seems to reduce the difficulties of intracorporeal suturing. The 6. Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, et al. Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty:
total complication rate of laparoscopic pyeloplasty has been The First 100 Cases. J Urol 2002;167(3):1253–1256. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-
5347(05)65276-7.
7
reported to range from 4 to 13% in the literature. There were 7. Zhang X, Li H-Z, Ma X, et al. Retrospective Comparison of
no complications and only one conversion to open surgery in Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Versus Open Dismembered Pyeloplasty
our research. 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
conclusIon Laparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty In Children. J Urol
Laparoscopic pyeloplasty is a safe and effective procedure 2005;173(5):1710–1713. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000154169.74458.32.
that follows a well-established procedure. When compared to 9. Klingler H Christoph, Remzi M, Janetschek G, et al. Comparison of
laparoscopic surgery, open pyeloplasty has a shorter operating Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty Techniques in Treatment of
time. The sole downside of laparoscopic pyeloplasty over Uretero-Pelvic Junction Obstruction. Eur Urol 2003;44(3):340–345.
DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00297-5.
open surgery is that it takes longer and needs a high level of 10. Soulié M, Thoulouzan M, Seguin P, et al. Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic
intracorporeal suturing competence. There were no redo instances Versus Open Pyeloplasty with a Minimal Incision: Comparison of
with laparoscopic pyeloplasty in our research. In comparison to Two Surgical Approaches. Urology 2001;57(3):443–447. DOI:10.1016/
open pyeloplasty, this surgery offers less morbidity, shorter hospital s0090-4295(00)01065-7.

176 World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery, Volume 14 Issue 3 (September–December 2021)