Ashok Kumar Hemal1, Rajiv Goel, Apul Goel. 1. Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. akhemal@hotmail.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LPP) is a minimally invasive treatment option for ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction. We report here our experience of performing cost-effective LPP on 24 patients at a single center. METHODS: Between October 1999 and March 2002, LPP was performed in 24 patients (17 male, seven female; age range 8-51 years) including two patients who had failed previous endourologic treatments. In two patients with concomitant renal stones, laparoscopic pyelolithotomy was also performed. LPP was conducted in a cost-reductive manner by both transperitoneal (n = 12) and retroperitoneal (n = 12) access. To reduce the cost, an indigenous balloon to create the retroperitoneal space, reusable ports, ordinary polyglactin suture and intracorporeal free-hand suturing were employed. To reduce operative time, antegrade stenting was also performed in some cases. RESULTS: Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty was performed in 16, Foley Y-V pyeloplasty in five and Fenger pyeloplasty in three patients. One patient required conversion to open surgery due to tension at the anastomosis site during Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. The mean operating time, blood loss, analgesic (pethidine) requirement, duration of drain and hospital stay for the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal groups were 170.3 and 187.6 min, 102.2 and 145.9 mL, 125 and 136.4 mg, 2.1 and 2.5 days, and 3.4 and 4.3 days, respectively. No significant complications were encountered apart from prolonged ileus in three patients in the transperitoneal group. The mean follow-up period was 10.8 months with a range of 2-24 months. Postoperative renal scan was performed at 3 months in 21 patients, and 1 year in 11 patients. There was evidence of equivocal obstruction in one patient, but there were no obstructions in the remaining patients. CONCLUSION: Although LPP is technically demanding, it is emerging as a viable, minimally invasive alternative to open pyeloplasty for UPJ obstruction with a success rate similar to that of open pyeloplasty. It allows the duplication of open surgery steps (unlike endoscopic procedures), thereby providing durable and sustained results. LPP can also be performed safely, effectively and efficiently in a cost-efficient manner.
OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LPP) is a minimally invasive treatment option for ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction. We report here our experience of performing cost-effective LPP on 24 patients at a single center. METHODS: Between October 1999 and March 2002, LPP was performed in 24 patients (17 male, seven female; age range 8-51 years) including two patients who had failed previous endourologic treatments. In two patients with concomitant renal stones, laparoscopic pyelolithotomy was also performed. LPP was conducted in a cost-reductive manner by both transperitoneal (n = 12) and retroperitoneal (n = 12) access. To reduce the cost, an indigenous balloon to create the retroperitoneal space, reusable ports, ordinary polyglactin suture and intracorporeal free-hand suturing were employed. To reduce operative time, antegrade stenting was also performed in some cases. RESULTS: Laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty was performed in 16, Foley Y-V pyeloplasty in five and Fenger pyeloplasty in three patients. One patient required conversion to open surgery due to tension at the anastomosis site during Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty. The mean operating time, blood loss, analgesic (pethidine) requirement, duration of drain and hospital stay for the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal groups were 170.3 and 187.6 min, 102.2 and 145.9 mL, 125 and 136.4 mg, 2.1 and 2.5 days, and 3.4 and 4.3 days, respectively. No significant complications were encountered apart from prolonged ileus in three patients in the transperitoneal group. The mean follow-up period was 10.8 months with a range of 2-24 months. Postoperative renal scan was performed at 3 months in 21 patients, and 1 year in 11 patients. There was evidence of equivocal obstruction in one patient, but there were no obstructions in the remaining patients. CONCLUSION: Although LPP is technically demanding, it is emerging as a viable, minimally invasive alternative to open pyeloplasty for UPJ obstruction with a success rate similar to that of open pyeloplasty. It allows the duplication of open surgery steps (unlike endoscopic procedures), thereby providing durable and sustained results. LPP can also be performed safely, effectively and efficiently in a cost-efficient manner.