Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 9, 2025
Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation
Published on: July 19, 2021
Comparison between open and minimally invasive pyeloplasty in infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Daniel Ortiz-Seller1, Jorge Panach-Navarrete1, Lorena Valls-González1
1Department of Urology, University Clinic Hospital of Valencia. INCLIVA, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria. Facultat de Medicina i Odontologia. Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain.
Insights
Minimally invasive pyeloplasty (MIP) in infants shows similar success rates to open surgery for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). While MIP may reduce hospital stay, open surgery offers shorter operative times, necessitating further research for definitive conclusions.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric Urology
- Minimally Invasive Surgery
- Congenital Anomalies
Background:
- Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is the most common congenital cause of hydronephrosis in infants.
- Laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) has emerged as a popular minimally invasive approach.
- Existing comparative studies on LP versus open pyeloplasty (OP) in infants are limited and yield controversial results.
Conclusions:
- Laparoscopic/robotic pyeloplasty is a safe and effective alternative to open surgery for UPJO in infants, with comparable success rates.
- While MIP may reduce hospital stay, OP offers a shorter operative duration.
- Further randomized clinical trials with extended follow-up are required to solidify these findings and provide more robust evidence.
Introduction:
Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is the most common cause of congenital hydronephrosis. Techniques such as laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) have gained in popularity over recent years. Although some retrospective studies have compared minimally invasive reconstructive techniques with open surgery for treatment of UPJO in infants, results remain controversial due to the small sample size in most of these studies.
Objective:
To verify whether the benefits of minimally invasive pyeloplasty (MIP) observed in adults and children over 2 years of age also apply to infants.
Methods:
A systematic review of the literature was performed according to PRISMA recommendations. We searched databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We excluded studies in which patient cohorts were outside the age range between 1 and 23 months of age (infants). Studies should evaluate at least one of the following outcomes: average hospital stay, operative time, follow-up time, complications, post-surgical catheter use, success rate and reintervention rate. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the ROBINS-I tool.
Results:
In total, 13 studies were selected. 3494 patients were included in the meta-analysis, of whom 3054 underwent OP, while the remaining 440 were part of the group undergoing MIP. The mean difference in hospital days was -1.16 lower the MIP group (95 % CI; -1.78, -0.53; p = 0.0003). Also, our analysis showed a significantly shorter surgical time in the group who underwent OP, with a mean operative time of 119.92 min, compared to 137.63 min in the MIP group (95 % CI; -31.76, -6.27; p = 0.003). No statistically significant between-group differences were found respect to follow-up time, complications, post-surgical catheter use, success rate and reintervention rate.
Conclusion:
This systematic review with meta-analysis has shown that laparoscopic/robotic pyeloplasty in infants is a safe technique with similar success rates to open surgery. Nonetheless, randomized clinical trials with longer follow-up are needed to consolidate these results with more robust scientific evidence.
