Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: comparison of two surgical approaches- a single centre experience of three...

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 analyzed the comparison of Laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in a randomized prospective trial. 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 3 months and IVP at 6 months. Perioperative parameters including operative time, analgesic use, hospital stay, and complication and success rates were compared. 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. Compared to open pyeloplasty the post operative diclofenac requirement was significantly less in LP group (mean107.14 mg) and open group required mean of (682.35 mg) The duration of analgesic requirement was also significantly less in LP group. The post operative hospital stay in LP was mean 8.29 days (7-11) and was significantly less than open group (mean 3.14 Days (2-7 days). Open pyeloplasty has been the gold standard for UPJO repair and achieves success rates exceeding 90%. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty provides a minimally invasive alternative to repair UPJO and has developed world wide as the first minimally option to match success rate of open pyeloplasty. Its potential advantages including less post op pain, shorter hospital stay an improved cosmesis has been proved in some comparative series. The only disadvantage seems to be longer operative time. 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.