1. Retroperitoneoscopic vs open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children.
- Author
-
Valla JS, Breaud J, Griffin SJ, Sautot-Vial N, Beretta F, Guana R, Gelas T, Carpentier X, Leculee R, and Steyaert H
- Subjects
- Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Retroperitoneal Space, Retrospective Studies, Urologic Surgical Procedures methods, Kidney Pelvis surgery, Laparoscopy methods, Ureteral Obstruction surgery
- Abstract
Purpose: To compare the effectiveness, potential advantages and complications of classical open pyeloplasty with retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty in children., Materials and Methods: Two patient cohorts with confirmed ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) undergoing open or retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty over a 7-year period were analysed comparatively., Results: Operative time was significantly longer in the retroperitoneoscopic group (mean 155 min) compared to the open pyeloplasty group (mean 98 min, P<0.05). Mean hospital stay was shorter in the retroperitoneoscopic group (mean 4.1 days, compared to 5.1 days, open). Complication rates were similar (open, 27% vs retroperitoneoscopic, 29%). These included anastomotic urinary leakage, stenosis and infection. Anastomotic leakage was more common in the retroperitoneoscopic group. There was a 6.6% conversion rate in the retroperitoneoscopic group. Success, defined as improved ultrasonic or renographic parameters, with resolution of symptoms where discernable, was noted in 96% of the open group and 97% of the retroperitoneoscopic group with a mean follow up of 38 and 25 months, respectively., Conclusions: Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty is as safe and effective as open pyeloplasty. This technique is now our procedure of choice for children>4 months old. The advantages are more obvious in children over 4 years than in infants. This technique remains difficult to perform and teach.
- Published
- 2009
- Full Text
- View/download PDF