Laparoendoscopic single site surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for transperitoneal pyeloplasty: A systematic...

We aimed to review studies comparing the outcomes of the laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) pyeloplasty with those of conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty (CLP). A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis) criteria. The methodological quality of the studies was rated according validated scales. The level of evidence (LE) was reported as described by the Oxford criteria. Preoperative demographic parameters and perioperative outcomes between the two surgical techniques were assessed. A meta-analysis of the included studies was performed. A total of 5 studies were elected for the analysis, including 164 cases, 70 (42.6%) of them being LESS and 94 (57.4%) being CLP. Four studies were observational retrospective comparative studies (LE: 3a-4); one was a prospective randomized controlled trial (LE: 2b). There was no significant difference in age, body mass index, gender, side and presence of the crossing vessel, between the groups. There was no significant difference regarding the operative time (weight mean difference [WMD]: -7.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -71.82-57.79; P = 0.83) and length of hospital stay (WMD: 0.04; 95% CI: -0.11-0.20; P = 0.58), whereas the estimated blood loss was statistically lower for LESS (WMD: -16.83; 95% CI: -31.79--1.87; P = 0.03). The postoperative use of analgesic favored the LESS group but without reaching statistical significance (WMD: -7.52; 95% CI: -17.56-2.53; P = 0.14). In conclusion, LESS pyeloplasty offers comparable surgical and functional outcomes to CLP while providing the potential advantages of less blood loss and lower analgesic requirement. Thus, despite being more technically challenging, LESS pyeloplasty can be regarded as a minimally invasive approach for patients seeking fewer incisional scars.