Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: A Prospective Randomized Comparison Between the Transperitoneal Approach and Retroperitoneoscopy
A prospective randomized study was performed to compare the results of laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty using transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches.Materials and Methods
A total of 40 patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were included in the study. The patients were prospectively randomized between transperitoneal (20 patients, group 1) and retroperitoneal (20 patients, group 2) laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. All the patients were assessed preoperatively by excretory urography, diuretic isotope renography and computerized tomography angiography. The patients were followed at 3 and 6 months postoperatively, and then every 6 months. Evaluation was performed by excretory urography and diuretic renography. Both approaches were compared regarding operative time, morbidity, hospital stay, convalescence and functional outcome. The preoperative demographic data of the patients and radiological and operative findings were statistically correlated to the operative time.Results
The preoperative data of both groups were comparable. All the procedures were successfully completed with laparoscopy. Mean operative times were 149 and 189 minutes for the transperitoneal approach and retroperitoneoscopy, respectively (p = 0.02). In groups 1 and 2 there were complications in 3 and 5 patients, respectively. Morbidity, hospital stay, convalescence and success rate had no significant differences between the groups. None of the patient parameters apart from the approach had a significant impact on operative time.Conclusions
Laparoscopic dismembered Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty has a satisfactory functional outcome and low morbidity regardless of the approach. Nevertheless, with early experience retroperitoneoscopy is associated with a longer operative time.