|
| | ORIGINAL ARTICLE | | | | | Year : 2008 | Volume : 4 | Issue : 3 | Page : 76-79 | | | Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: Comparison of two surgical approaches- a single centre experience of three years
Punit Bansal, Aman Gupta, Ritesh Mongha, Srinivas Narayan, AK Kundu, SC Chakraborty, RK Das, MK Bera
Department of Urology, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, India
| Date of Submission | 21-Feb-2008 | | Date of Acceptance | 12-Aug-2008 | Correspondence Address:
Punit Bansal
Department of Urology, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, 242 AJC Bose Road, Kolkata- 700 020
India
  | 12 |
DOI: 10.4103/0972-9941.43091 PMID: 19547693 Background: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) causes hydronephrosis and progressive renal impairment may ensue if left uncorrected. Open pyeloplasty remains the standard against which new technique must be compared. We compared laparoscopic (LP) and open pyeloplasty (OP) in a randomized prospective trial. Materials and Methods: A prospective randomized study was done from January 2004 to January 2007 in which a total of 28 laparoscopic and 34 open pyeloplasty were done. All laparoscopic pyeloplasties were performed transperitoneally. Standard open Anderson Hynes pyeloplasty, spiral flap or VY plasty was done depending on anatomic consideration. Patients were followed with DTPA scan at three months and IVP at six months. Perioperative parameters including operative time, analgesic use, hospital stay, and complication and success rates were compared. Results: Mean total operative time with stent placement in LP group was 244.2 min (188-300 min) compared to 122 min (100-140 min) in OP group. Compared to OP group, the post operative diclofenac requirement was significantly less in LP group (mean 107.14 mg) and OP group required mean of (682.35 mg). The duration of analgesic requirement was also significantly less in LP group. The postoperative hospital stay in LP was mean 3.14 Days (2-7 days) significantly less than the open group mean of 8.29 days (7-11 days). Conclusion: LP has a minimal level of morbidity and short hospital stay compared to open approach. Although, laparoscopic pyeloplasty has the disadvantages of longer operative time and requires significant skill of intracorporeal knotting but it is here to stay and represents an emerging standard of care.
Keywords: Laparoscopy, pyeloplasty, UPJO
How to cite this article:
Bansal P, Gupta A, Mongha R, Narayan S, Kundu A K, Chakraborty S C, Das R K, Bera M K. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: Comparison of two surgical approaches- a single centre experience of three years. J Min Access Surg 2008;4:76-9 |
How to cite this URL:
Bansal P, Gupta A, Mongha R, Narayan S, Kundu A K, Chakraborty S C, Das R K, Bera M K. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: Comparison of two surgical approaches- a single centre experience of three years. J Min Access Surg [serial online] 2008 [cited 2014 Feb 28];4:76-9. Available from: http://www.journalofmas.com/text.asp?2008/4/3/76/43091 |
| ¤ Introduction | |  |
Open pyeloplasty has been the gold standard for surgical treatment of ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction, enjoying a long-term success rate exceeding 90%. [1] This procedure requires a muscle incision that entails some degree of morbidity. UPJO causes hydronephrosis and progressive renal impairment may ensue if left uncorrected. [2] The optimum surgical correction of UPJO has been a urological challenge for over a century. [3] Open pyeloplasty originally described by Andersen and Hynes [4] remains the gold standard against which new technique must be compared. The morbidity associated with flank incision, however, has led to development of minimally invasive approaches to UPJ repair. Over the last two decades the treatment approach to UPJ obstruction has evolved from open pyeloplasty to various minimally invasive procedures like endopyelotomy, acucise catheter incision, balloon dilatation and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. These minimally invasive options are reported to been less successful than open pyeloplasty. [5] Laparoscopic pyeloplasty was described first in 1993 by Schuessler et al . Laparoscopic pyeloplasty has developed worldwide as the first minimally invasive option to match success rate of open pyeloplasty. . Only one randomised study to compare Laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty has been done by Turk et al in 2002. [6] We analysed the comparison of Laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in a randomised prospective trial.
| ¤ Materials and Methods | | |
A prospective randomised study was done from January 2004 to January 2007 in which a total of 28 Laparoscopic and 34 open pyeloplasty were done. All procedures were performed at our institute. The patients had radiographic evidence of UPJO on diuretic renography or hydronephrosis with delayed function on IVP in conjunction with signs and symptoms or deterioration of renal function. Out of the 28 patients for laparoscopy 25 presented with pain and three presented with recurrent urinary tract infection. Thirty patients had pain in open pyeloplasty group while three presented with lump and one patient presented with haematuria after minor trauma. All patients underwent cystoscopy and RGP to confirm the diagnosis before the procedure. Ureteric catheter was left in situ .
All laparoscopic pyeloplasties were performed transperitoneally. Patients were placed in lateral kidney position. Four to five trocars were placed to enable dissection, retraction and identification of PUJO. Depending on the anatomical findings at time of dissection dismembered or non dismembered procedures were performed. In case of redundant pelvis reduction, pyeloplasty was performed. Anastomoses were done with 4-0 polyglactin. After completion of posterior layer DJ stent was placed and then anastomosis was completed Drain was inserted adjacent to repair and Foleys catheter was left in the bladder for two days. Drain was removed the next day if the drain output did not increase. Internal stent was removed after the fourth week.
Standard open Anderson Hynes pyeloplasty, spiral flap or VY plasty was done depending on anatomic consideration. The patients were randomly admitted for pyeloplasty under four different surgeons. All laparoscopic cases were performed by a single surgeon dedicated to laparoscopy while open cases were performed by different surgeons' expert in open surgery. Ethics committee approval was obtained prior to the study.
Patients were followed with DTPA scan at three months and IVP at six months. Thereafter, patients were followed at six months and then annually. The patients were radiologically investigated with DTPA scan depending on symptoms and signs.
Peri-operative parameters including operative time, analgesic use, hospital stay, and complication and success rates were compared. Postop patients received transdermal patch 100 mg or 200 mg (Diclofenac) according to severity of pain. Patients were assessed in postop period regarding pain according to the requirement of transdermal diclofenac patch (duration and quantity).
The success was defined radiologically as a patent, unobstructed UPJ or improved or maintained renal functional status and symptomatic improvement. Formal chart review was completed with all peri-operative data completed and statistical analysis was done using Fisher exact test, unpaired t test and Marn-Whitney U test.
| ¤ Results | | |
The demographics of two groups were similar with regard to sex, age, laterality. None had any significant co-morbid condition. The mean follow-up in open cases was 33.5 months and in Laparoscopic cases was 34.5 months.
A total of 28 Laparoscopic pyeloplasties and 34 open pyeloplasties were performed [Table 1]. Two patients in laparoscopic group had VY plasty due to high insertion of ureter and less dilated renal pelvis.
Mean total operative time with stent placement in LP group was 244.2 min (188-300 min) compared to 122 min (100-140 min) in open group. Total operative time did improve with experience for LP patients as average time reduced to 202 min for last five patients. There was no blood transfusion in any patient. There was no mortality in either group.
Compared to open pyeloplasty, the postoperative diclofenac requirement was significantly less in LP group (mean107.14 mg) compared to open group mean (682.35 mg). The duration of analgesic requirement was also significantly less in LP group. The postoperative hospital stay in LP was mean 3.14 Days (2-7 days) significantly less than open group mean 8.29 days (7-11 days) [Table 2].
We had two cases of UPJO secondary to failed endopyelotomy which required operative duration of 300 minutes. Both patients had a successful outcome.
There was only one conversion in laparoscopic group to open surgery as we were unable to remove associated calculus by laparoscopy. There was only one major complication in laparoscopic group. That patient had prolonged drainage of urine (six days) through the drain which subsided with prolonged catheterisation. He had recurrence of symptoms at three months and an obstructive DTPA curve. This was probably secondary to fibrosis caused by leakage of urine that occurred earlier. The patient was managed with endopyelotomy after six months. No patient in open group had recurrence.
| ¤ Discussion | | |
The first successful reconstruction of an obstructed UPJO was accomplished in 1892. [7] Since then open pyeloplasty has been the gold standard for UPJO repair and achieves success rates exceeding 90% in contemporary series. [8],[9],[10] In 1983 Wicham and Kellet described percutaneous pyelolysis (endopyelotomy) which subsequently gained some popularity. [11] Subsequent evolution in endoscopic physiology and application together with advances in endoscopic technology fostered advances in the field. Current approaches include antegrade percutaneous, retrograde ureteroscopic guided laser and retrograde acusize® balloon dilatation. The success rate of these minimally invasive options have consistently been less than with open pyeloplasty by 10-30%. [12],[13],[14] The varied surgical anatomy of PUJ (huge dilatation, crossing vessels, high insertion of ureter) compromise all of these endourological procedures. These procedures are also associated with a risk of peri-operative haemorrhage and 3-11% patients' required blood transfusion. [15],[16]
Laparoscopic pyeloplasty provides a minimally invasive alternative to repair UPJO. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty was introduced in 1993 by Schussller et al and has developed worldwide as the first minimal option to match success rate of open pyeloplasty. [3] Reconstruction of UPJO can be tailored to anatomical findings at the time of surgery. [17] The feasibility of Laparoscopic pyeloplasty including Anderson Hynes, Fengers, Foleys VY plasty performed through transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach has been evaluated. [18] Its potential advantages including less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay and improved cosmesis have been proved in previous comparative series. [19],[20],[21] The only disadvantage seems to be longer operative time in published series. [19],[20] However, Zhang et al , [18] reported less operative time in Laparoscopic group (retroperitoneal) than open group. As laparoscopic surgery becomes more entrenched in resident training, the more complex skills such as intracorporeal suturing become less daunting. Moreover, long operative time may be reduced by skill of intracorporeal knotting and development of new robotic equipment. [21] The performance enhancing feature of Da Vinci robot seems to decrease the difficulty of intra corporeal suturing. In general the reported overall complications rate of laparoscopic pyeloplasty ranges from 4% - 12.7%. [18] In the present study there was only one major complication and only one conversion to open surgery. This is possibly the result of the experience of the surgeon who did laparoscopic cases. Siguriea et al [22] reported success rate in eight of nine patients with secondary PUJO while Sundaram et al [23] reported 89% success rate in secondary procedure and a longer mean operating time of 6.3 h(2.7-10) In our series, we had two secondary cases with operative duration of 300 min. Both patients had a successful outcome. Ram Kumar et al , reported a series of 20 LPs with stone extraction through Laparoscope port. We had five patients with associated stone disease. Three were managed by open approach. One patient being managed laparoscopically had to be converted to open as stone could not be retrieved by laparoscopy. Zhang et al , [18] reported that analgesic requirement was significantly less in LP than open pyeloplasty. The duration and amount of analgesic requirement is significantly less than that in open pyeloplasty in our series. The success rate of laparoscopic pyeloplasty has been reported to be consistently high, at 87-98%. [3] In the present series, we had a success rate of 92.3%. We considered conversion to open as a failure.
| ¤ Conclusion | | |
LP is a technically sound operation which uses well established principles familiar to urologist. The only disadvantage of Laparoscopic pyeloplasty is longer operative time and requires significant skill of intracorporeal knotting This procedure has a minimal level of morbidity, short hospital stay, better cosmesis compared to open approach. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty has emerged as the standard of care and is here to stay.
| ¤ References | | |
| 1. | Troxel S, Das S, Helfer E, Nugyen M. Laparoscopy versus dorsal lumbotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair. J Urol 2006;176:1073-6.  | | 2. | Persky L, Krause JR, Boltuch RL. Initial complications and late results in dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1977;118:162-4. | | 3. | Adeyoju AB, Hrouda D, Gill IS. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: The first decade. BJU Int 2004;94:264-7. | | 4. | Anderson JC, HynesW. Retro-caval ureter: A case diagnosed preoperatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol 1949;21:209-14. | | 5. | Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993;150:1795-9. | | 6. | Turk IA, Davis JW, Winkelmann B, Deger S, Richter F, Fabrizio MD, et al . Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty - the method of choice in the presence of an enlarged renal pelvis and crossing vessel. Eur Urol 2002;42:268-75. | | 7. | Kletscher BA, Segura JW, Le Roy AJ and Patterson DE. Percutaneous antegrade endopyelotomy: Review of 50 consecutive 50 cases. J Urol 1995;153:701-3. | | 8. | Psooy K, Pike JG, Leonard MP. Long-term follow-up of pediatric dismembered pyeloplasty: How long is long enough? J Urol 2003;169:1809-12. | | 9. | Notley RG, Beaugie JM: The long term follow-up of Anderson hynes pyeloplasty for hydronephrosis. Br J Urol 1973;45:464-6. | | 10. | Nguyen DH, Aliabadi H, Ercole CJ,Gonzalez R. Nonintubated Anderson hynes repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in 60 patients. J Urol 1989;142:704-7. | | 11. | Wickham JE, Kellet MJ. Percutaneous pyelolysis. Eur Urol 1983;9:122-4. | | 12. | Giddens JL, Grasso M. Retrograde ureteroscopic endopyelotomy using Holmium -YAG laser. J Urol 2000;164:1509-12. | | 13. | Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N, Mcdougall EM. Single centre comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acusize endopyelotomy and open pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2003;17:155-7. | | 14. | Faerber GJ, Richardson TD, Farah N, Ohl DA. Retrograde treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction using ureteral cutting ballon catheter. J Urol 1997;157:454-8. | | 15. | Badlani, G, Eshghi M, Smith AD. Percutaneous surgery for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (endopyelotomy) technique and early results. J Urol 1986;135:26-8. | | 16. | Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, Schuessler WW, Moore RG. Comparison of open and endourological approaches to obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology 1995;46:791-5. | | 17. | Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Charambura TC, Fugita O, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: The first 100 cases. J Urol 2002;167:1253-6. | | 18. | Zhang X, Li HZ, Ma X, Zheng T, Lang B, Zhang J, et al . Retrospective comparison of Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2006;176:1077-80. | | 19. | Bonnard A, Fouquet V, Carrricaburu E, Aigrain Y, El-Ghoneimi A. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 2005;173:1710-3. | | 20. | Klingler HC, Rezmi M, Janetschek C, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ. Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2003;44:340-5. | | 21. | Soulie M, Thoulouzan M, Seguin P, Mouly P, Vazzoler N, Pontonnier F, et al . Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty with a minimal incision: Comparison of two surgical approaches. Urology 2001;57:443-7. | | 22. | Sundaram CP, Grubb RL 3 rd , Rehman J, Yan Y, Chen C, Landman J, et al . Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction J Urol 2003;169:2037-40. | | 23. | Siqueira TM Jr, Nadu A, Kuo RL, Paterson RF, Lingeman JE, Shalhav AL. Laparoscopic treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 2002;60:973-8. |
[Table 1], [Table 2]
| This article has been cited by | | 1 | Trends in the treatment of adults with ureteropelvic junction obstruction | | | Jacobs, B.L. and Kaufman, S.R. and Morgenstern, H. and Hollenbeck, B.K. and Stuart Wolf Jr., J. and Hollingsworth, J.M. | | Journal of Endourology. 2013; 27(3): 355-360 | | [Pubmed] | | | 2 | Laparoscopic retroperitoneal dismembered pyeloplasty: Single-center experience in China | | | Hao, G. and Xiao, J. and Yang, P. and Shen, H. | | Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques. 2013; 23(1): 38-41 | | [Pubmed] | | | 3 | Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Dismembered Pyeloplasty: Single-Center Experience in China | | | GangYue Hao,Jing Xiao,PeiQian Yang,HongLiang Shen | | Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. 2013; 23(1): 38 | | [Pubmed] | | | 4 | Trends in the Treatment of Adults with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction | | | Bruce L. Jacobs,Samuel R. Kaufman,Hal Morgenstern,Brent K. Hollenbeck,J. Stuart Wolf,John M. Hollingsworth | | Journal of Endourology. 2013; 27(3): 355 | | [Pubmed] | | | 5 | Determination of Patient Concerns in Choosing Surgery and Preference for Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery and Assessment of Satisfaction with Postoperative Cosmesis | | | Steven M. Lucas,Jacob Baber,Chandru P. Sundaram | | Journal of Endourology. 2012; 26(6): 585 | | [Pubmed] | | | 6 | Pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction with mini review: Laparoscopic or open? | | | Falahatkar, S. and Roushani, A. and Nasseh, H. and Kazemnezhad, E. and Moghaddam, K.G. and Raoofi, S.M. and Asl, M.M. and Enshaei, A. and Farzan, A. | | UroToday International Journal. 2012; 5(4) | | [Pubmed] | | | 7 | Determination of patient concerns in choosing surgery and preference for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery and assessment of satisfaction with postoperative cosmesis | | | Lucas, S.M. and Baber, J. and Sundaram, C.P. | | Journal of Endourology. 2012; 26(6): 585-591 | | [Pubmed] | | | 8 | Minimal invasive pyeloplasty technique with vertical surgical approach: An alternative to laparoscopic pyeloplasty | | | Coşkun Şahin, Mehmet Kalkan, Hakkı Uzun | | The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences. 2012; | | [VIEW] | | | 9 | Comparison of the operation time and complications between conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty | | | E. García-Galisteo, E. Emmanuel-Tejero, P. Navarro Vílchez, J. García-Galisteo, V. Baena-González | | Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition). 2012; | | [VIEW] | | | 10 | Transperitoneal Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty<sup>*</sup> | | | Steven M. Lucas, Chandru P. Sundaram | | Journal of Endourology. 2011; 25(2): 167 | | [VIEW] | | | 11 | Comparison of open and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction surgery: Report of 49 cases | | | Umari, P. and Lissiani, A. and Trombetta, C. and Belgrano, E. | | Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia. 2011; 83(4): 169-174 | | [Pubmed] | | | 12 | Comparison of the operation time and complications between conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty [Comparación del tiempo operatorio y complicaciones entre la pieloplastia laparoscópica convencional y robótica] | | | GarcÃa-Galisteo, E. and Emmanuel-Tejero, E. and Navarro VÃlchez, P. and GarcÃa-Galisteo, J. and Baena-González, V. | | Actas Urologicas Espanolas. 2011; 35(9): 523-528 | | [Pubmed] | | | 13 | Hidden Incision Endoscopic Surgery: Description of Technique, Parental Satisfaction and Applications | | | Patricio C. Gargollo | | The Journal of Urology. 2011; 185(4): 1425 | | [VIEW] | | | 14 | Laparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | | | Hong Mei, Jiarui Pu, Chunlei Yang, Huanyu Zhang, Liduan Zheng, Qiangsong Tong | | Journal of Endourology. 2011; 25(5): 727 | | [VIEW] | | | 15 | Wilkeæs syndrome. A rare cause of duodenal obstruction | | | Lorentziadis, M.L. | | Annals of Gastroenterology. 2011; 24(1): 59-61 | | [Pubmed] | | | 16 | Comparación del tiempo operatorio y complicaciones entre la pieloplastia laparoscópica convencional y robótica | | | E. García-Galisteo,E. Emmanuel-Tejero,P. Navarro Vílchez,J. García-Galisteo,V. Baena-González | | Actas Urológicas Españolas. 2011; 35(9): 523 | | [Pubmed] | | | 17 | Transperitoneal Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty | | | Steven Mark Lucas, Chandru P. Sundaram | | Journal of Endourology Part B Videourology. 2011; 25(1) | | [VIEW] | | | 18 | Long-Term Outcome of Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Multicentric Comparative Study of Techniques and Accesses | | | Roberto Vaz Juliano, Rafaela R. Mendonça, Fernando Meyer, Maurício Rubinstein, Marco Túlio Coelho Lasmar, Fernando Korkes, Alessandro Tavares, Antonio Carlos Lima Pompeo, Marcos Tobias-Machado | | Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. 2011; 21(5): 399 | | [VIEW] | | | 19 | Factors That Impact the Outcome of Minimally Invasive Pyeloplasty: Results of the Multi-Institutional Laparoscopic and Robotic Pyeloplasty Collaborative Group | | | | | The Journal of Urology. 2011; | | [VIEW] | | | 20 | Laparoscopic lysis of duodenum for superior mesenteric artery syndrome: How and why we do it? | | | Wu, Q.-H., Wang, M.-L., Zang, L., Zhang, T., Zheng, M.-H. | | Chinese Medical Journal. 2010; 123(15): 2148-2150 | | [Pubmed] | | | 21 | A comprehensive review of superior mesenteric artery syndrome | | | Mandarry, M.T., Zhao, L., Zhang, C., Wei, Z.Q. | | European Surgery - Acta Chirurgica Austriaca. 2010; 42(5): 229-236 | | [Pubmed] | | | 22 | Robotic duodenojejunostomy for superior mesenteric artery syndrome in a teenager | | | Bütter, A., Jayaraman, S., Schlachta, C. | | Journal of Robotic Surgery. 2010; 4(4): 265-269 | | [Pubmed] | |
| | |   | | | | |
